Fort Funston Forum       Friday, October 6, 2000
to Front Page         Second Section        to Court Report

---

Quail Questions

Quail Resolution Approved The San Francisco Board of Supervisors at their Monday, July 10, 2000 meeting approved a: Resolution urging the Recreation and Park Department, the Public Utilities Commission, and other City Departments to give the utmost cooperation and support to the "Save the Quail Campaign" without killing other animals, and designating the California Quail as the official bird of the City and County of San Francisco.

---

Board of Supervisors Agenda, San Francisco
Monday, July 10, 2000 For adoption without committee reference. These measures are introduced for adoption without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution today. Any Supervisor may require any resolution to go to committee. Items 35 through 46..........
37. 001215 [Save the Quail Campaign] Supervisor Katz
Resolution urging the Recreation and Park Department, the Public Utilities Commission, and other City Departments to give the utmost cooperation and support to the "Save the Quail Campaign" without killing other animals, and designating the California Quail as the official bird of the City and County of San Francisco.
6/26/2000, REFERRED FOR ADOPTION WITHOUT COMMITTEE REFERENCE AGENDA AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. Question: Shall this Resolution be ADOPTED?
    (emphasis added)

City Bird Waiting in the Wings
June 26, 2000 -- San Francisco Examiner
Kathleen Sullivan
" ..... But no cats, racoons or skunks - or people with off-leash dogs - are expected to show up to protest the bird's proposed honor at City Hall."
    (emphasis added)

Supervisor Presses Cause Of Quail in City Parks
June 24, 2000 - San Francisco Chronicle
"The commission forwarded its proposal to the Board of Supervisors last month, after the pro-quail Golden Gate chapter of the Audubon Society and the pro-cat San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals agreed on a joint plan. The SPCA had earlier objected to the quail plan because it feared the project would entail killing the feral cats that live in Golden Gate Park. For years, the SPCA has been working to cut the feral cat population by neutering and spaying such cats. As approved by the commission, the plan makes no reference to removing cats."
   (emphasis added)

"Save the Quail" Campaign
Golden Gate Audubon Society
"As the breeding season approached quail sightings continued to come in from the Presidio and Strybing Arboretum in Golden Gate Park. Many people reported seeing males and females paired for nesting. A May 7, check of the habitat restoration area at Fort Funston found that the quail had returned. "Through the article we learned of quail populations in the San Francisco Golf Club, The Olympic Club, and there were also reports of quail near Mt. Davidson, Glen Canyon Park, and Diamond Heights. One quail was seen near Stern Grove and was reported by numerous observers. Other reports were from near the Polo Field, and the Oak Woodlands in Golden Gate Park. The two most unusual reports were from the Mission District and Russian Hill."
    (emphasis added)

California Quail Have Refuge in Presidio:
June 20, 2000 - Quail Unlimited
Explains new traffic signs' significance:
"The signs are to notify and encourage visitors to drive slowly in sensitive areas, keep their pets on a leash and avoid feeding animals that prey on quail." ... "Quail chicks, in recent years, have hatched in mid-June on the Presidio. Shortly after hatching, the young leave their nest and feed on their own, which makes the chicks more susceptible to an early death than other species which stay in their nest." ... "The quail's nests are usually well hidden."
    (emphasis added)

Presidio Takes Quail Under Its Wing
June 29, 2000 - San Francisco Chronicle
Kelly St. John
"At the turn of the century, 1,200 quail nested in Golden Gate Park, but loss of habitat, predators and humans have cut those numbers to about a dozen. Fort Funston is the other area in San Francisco where quail are found. On July 10, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on a plan, sponsored by Supervisor Leslie Katz, to name the California quail San Francisco's official city bird and to protect the birds by restoring their native habitat in the city's parks. City agencies would be asked to support the Golden Gate Audubon Society's "Save the Quail" campaign, which promotes habitat preservation and education of the public about the quail's plight"
    (emphasis added)

Endorsing the "Save the Quail" Campaign
Resolution No. 009-00-COE May 15, 2000
Commission on the Environment, City and County of San Francisco
"WHEREAS, The California Quail is significant to our cultural history as well as our natural heritage, as quail were an important food source to the Ohlone people and to the early settlers; and, WHEREAS, ....."
    (emphasis added)

S.F. Panel OKs Plan to Save Park Quail  
May 16, 2000 - San Francisco Chronicle
by Tom Zoellner
"The 'Save the Quails ' plan to rehabilitate the park's dwindling quail habitat goes next to the Board of Supervisors after being modified with the phrase, ''without killing any animals.'' A sentence calling for the removal of ''invasive, non-native species'' was also amended to refer only to plants, ivy and other vegetation that threatens quail habitats. Cat lovers, led by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, had worried that saving the quail was a backdoor excuse to eradicate the park's population of stray cats, which feed on birds, including quail."
   (emphasis added)

Golden Gate Park Losing its Quail
Jan. 13, 2000 - San Francisco Examiner
"Statewide, the quail population is in good shape, said Department of Fish and Game biologist Sam Blankenship. The population decline in Golden Gate Park may be hard to arrest, because "it's difficult for an isolated area like that to repopulate. Quail (populations) boom and bust, and there's no ebb and flow from other population areas." California hunters bagged 500,374 quail during the staggered hunting seasons, which run from the last week in September until Jan. 10."
    (emphasis added)

California's Upland Game Birds
Department of Fish and Game: California Quail.
"These quail are found in every county of the State. They are usually associated with brushy vegetation in combination with more open weedy or grassy habitats and available water supplies. They avoid heavy forest and dense chaparral, although trees with dense foliage may be used for roosting. The California quail is also known as the valley quail, and became the official California State bird in 1931."
    (emphasis added)

The California Quail
website - by Dave Riensche
"Of our three species of Quail, the California is the most wide spread."     
   (emphasis added)

A Quail Quandary  
July 8, 2000 - San Francisco Chronicle
by Glen Martin
"The sole bright spot, said Hopkins, is Fort Funston, where habitat restoration projects have resulted in a modest resurgence in quail numbers. Hopkins said much of the bird's decline can be attributed to habitat destruction. ``Our goal is to increase suitable habitat in areas where quail can live, and possibly conduct reintroduction programs if necessary,'' he said."
   (emphasis added)

Quail Questions and Answers
Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries
"Q. Why doesn't the Game Department stock pen-raised quail to increase population levels? A. From 1922 through 1958, more than 100,000 pen-raised quail were raised at Department Game Farms and released throughout the state. Wildlife managers began to notice that areas where large numbers of quail had been released seemed to have no more birds than unstocked areas. Soon it was the general consensus that stocking pen-reared quail into unoccupied areas did not result in the establishment of new populations, usually because habitat conditions were sub-optimal. Stocking birds into favorable habitat was deemed unnecessary because native birds would colonize these areas. Pen-raised quail usually survive poorly because they are less wary and fly slower than wild birds, making them very susceptible to predation. There is also concern that the release of pen-raised quail can introduce diseases into the wild population and increase mortality rates by attracting predators to the release site. As a result, the Department recommends habitat improvements as the best way to increase quail numbers on a landowner's property. Stocking pen-raised quail into habitats where native quail can not survive is a waste of valuable resources that could be used for legitimate conservation efforts."
    (emphasis added)

Ecology & Management of the Northern Bobwhite
Mississippi State University Extension Service
"Annual burning of cutovers and open pine forests, along with associated grazing of livestock and cropping, provided the right patchwork or "mosaic" of early successional habitats that quail require..." ........ "Researchers and other professionals learned that bobwhites require patchy habitats that provide a mix of bare ground, seeds, and insects and vegetation for nesting, brood-rearing cover, and protection from predators."
    (emphasis added)

All About Nature: Animal Printouts
EnchantedLearning.com    Hey KIDS!
Color a quail drawing -- with Crayons or Paint!
"In addition to printing the animals, you can copy a printout and paste it into a painting program (like Paint) and color the animal there." ... "The quail's call sounds like chi--CA-go, where the middle sound (CA) is higher in pitch."
    (emphasis added)

California Quail
GeoZoo:
" Like many of their relatives, California quails explode in flight when surprised on the ground. (They have been timed at thirty-eight to fifty-eight miles per hour.) But, unlike bobwhites, they don’t all fly at once, and they scatter in different directions. After alighting, they run swiftly. (They have been timed running at twelve miles per hour.)"
    (emphasis added)

California Quail Breeding Distribution Map
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey, I
Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1,
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

California Quail Trend Distribution Map
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey,
Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1,
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

 
The California Quail
by A. Starker Leopold
University of California Press 1985
The definitive reference book.

 

Wildlife Terms
North Carolina State University, North Carolina A & T State University,
US Department of Agriculture, and local governments.

---

The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

2500 16th Street * San Francisco, CA * 94103-4213 * (415) 554-3000 *

www.sfspca.org
============

Statement to the Commission on the Environment:

Proposed Resolution to Target "Non-Native" Species

May 15, 2000

The San Francisco SPCA believes all animals, whether wild or domestic, are equally entitled to our respect, concern, and compassion. We also believe each is entitled to a fair share of the natural resources necessary to preserve their well-being. We recognize that in some cases the needs of one species may conflict with that of another.  In weighing these different interests, we feel that balance and fairness are essential for a just resolution. Where the loss to one species is great, the corresponding need should be equally compelling. And no species should be asked to give up vital habitat and essential natural resources without such a demonstration.  To burden one creature without benefiting another is, in our view, misguided and wrong. And whatever the need, killing is never an appropriate solution, even when the corresponding need appears compelling

Before the Commission on the Environment is a proposed resolution endorsing a "Save the Quail" campaign. It claims that the quail is native to San Francisco, was an important food source to early settlers, is declining in population, and blames "introduction of invasive non-native species" for the decline.  The proposed resolution also calls on City government to develop and implement a quail recovery and management plan.  The San Francisco SPCA objects to the proposed resolution for the following reasons:

The proposed resolution lacks a balanced perspective. Scientific studies of the actual nature of cat and other predation in City parks were not included, animal welfare organizations were not consulted prior to the drafting of the resolution, and true reasons for quail decline are ignored.

The proposed resolution will likely be carried out through trapping and slaughter of innocent cats, skunks and other animals; by denying adequate opportunities for dogs and dog lovers to exercise; and by limiting recreation opportunities for scores of other park users.

The proposal will not result in increasing quail populations. At the same time, taxpayer money will have been wasted, cats and skunks will have been killed, recreation opportunities limited, and the clear-cutting of trees and plants carried out.

Although carefully worded to appear innocuous, the proposed resolution is merely a rewording of both a 1993 plan to round up and kill feral cats in City parks and language in the draft Sustainability Plan which apparently saw nothing amiss with ranking "irresponsible pet owners" as a major threat to biodiversity -- a point that defies fact and logic.

In 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to remove that language from the Sustainability Plan before it was approved as a document for San Francisco's future. And following months of research and public testimony, an equally one-side vote by the Commission on Animal Control and Welfare thoroughly rejected the 1993 call for killing cats in City parks.

Unless the Commission is concluding that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Commission on Animal Control and Welfare, the San Francisco park studies by biologist Robert Berg, and predation studies on four continents (13 studies in Europe, 12 in North America, 9 in Australia, and 1 in Africa) are all wrong, cats and other unwanted animals should not be unfairly implicated in any perceived decimation of  local wildlife.

 

Accordingly, on behalf of the 91,249 members of The San Francisco SPCA, we ask that the Commission reject the proposed backward-thinking resolution, and in its place, reaffirm San Francisco as a City that looks to the future -- a future of compassion and sensitivity for all life.

1.      The Proposed Resolution Is Internally and Hopelessly Flawed. [1]

Golden Gate Park is a man-made construct; it does not fit into any natural type of ecosystem. From an ecological standpoint, there are plants from all over the world in "unnatural" assemblages.  To suggest that feral cats or other "introduced" species in the park are upsetting the natural ecosystem is nonsensical since the park itself is not part of the "natural" ecosystem (the original ecosystem consisted of coastal strand vegetation and wildlife near the ocean and dune ecosystems inland covering most of what today comprises the avenues.)

At the same time, the quail in Golden Gate Park and elsewhere in San Francisco is not native. Quail were also "introduced" into this and other City parks (A study by biologist Dr. Robert Berg indicates that the park quail are what is likely left of birds released in the recent past from a time when raising baby quail from eggs in incubators was a popular children's activity, and parents released the quail when they became adults and the children lost interest). Regardless of when and where the quail came from, the area that comprises Golden Gate Park, either now or before the park was constructed, is not habitat that is conducive to the maintenance of a healthy breeding quail population.  In  order for a population of quail to exist in a biologically healthy manner the following attributes must be present: First, the area must be large enough to support a population that in itself contains enough individuals to maintain genetic diversity (i.e., inbreeding must be kept to a minimum). Second, there must be genetic continuity with other members of the species (immigration), which is one of the ways genetic diversity within the population is maintained. Third, the habitat must provide the species in question with available foraging and breeding sites as well as refuge, patchy environments, dispersal barriers, and alternative food sources.

The Park, as it pertains to the quail, falls short in all the aspects listed above. As a result, it should not be surprising that they do not fare well.  Due to the policy of removing such vegetation to discourage the homeless from taking refuge there, the quail are deprived of the underbrush they desire for safe foraging and flight. True quail habitat consists of scrublands and chapparel ecosystems, while Golden Gate Park offers neither.

To also suggest that Lincoln Park, Lake Merced, Harding Park, Stern Grove and Pine Lake Park are any better is also wishful thinking. These areas, even if they contained their original assemblages of plants and animals, are much too small to support viable quail populations in any meaningful ecological or evolutionary sense. In short, even a pristine San Francisco is not conducive to a healthy quail population. Particularly as it relates to the parks noted in the resolution, it is the encroachment of the urban areas and lack of habitat which are responsible for quail decline. The fact that they cannot sustain a viable population speaks more to the unsuitability of City parks and the City proper as habitat, than to some overwhelming pressure from "invasive non-native species."

Even if all cats, skunks, and other so-called "invasive non-native species" were removed from City parks, if dog walking was prohibited, and if our parks became fenced compounds, the quail would eventually suffer local extinction for the reasons stated above. As a result, the killing of innocent animals, the thwarting of recreation opportunities for San Francisco residents with or without dogs, cutting down trees and removing plants will be done in vain, and at great cost, without achieving the desired results.

2.      The Proposed Resolution Seeks Scapegoats not Solutions.

In Golden Gate Park, and throughout our City, the factors that account for the disappearance of the quail and other wildlife/birds are habitat loss, pollution, removal of shrubbery, use of pesticides and inclement weather changes.

The reasons for this are well-documented. As human development continues in our already crowded City, available habitat for wildlife is carved up into smaller and smaller pieces. Under such circumstances, harsh winters or long periods of drought can easily drive down remaining quail populations.

Pesticides are also recognized as a major culprit in bird decline -- particularly the effect of toxic lawn care products. Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides are routinely used in City parks. Indeed, poisoning as a result of everyday use of pesticides has become so widespread that biologists term the phenomenon "lawn-care syndrome."  Other practices, such as removal of low growing shrubbery, tree trimming, and the lack of adequate maintenance at many City parks will also impact on birds and other wildlife.

City officials have also recognized and acknowledged that cats are not responsible for bird decline in San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors' Commission on Animal Control and Welfare put a stop to a proposed round up and kill plan for feral cats in Golden Gate Park after extensive research and public testimony demonstrated a clear lack of evidence that cats were impacting quail and other birds. The Board of Supervisors also removed language from the City's Sustainability Plan targeting feral cats as a threat to biodiversity -- a decision reached after all sides were heard, a consideration not extended by the Department of the Environment in the drafting of the original document.

In addition, aggressive spay/neuter and other humane community-based programs have markedly decreased the cat population in the park.  In one location, a colony was reduced from 85 cats to two, without a single cat being killed. Since the cat population is declining, shouldn't the quail population be increasing? If the quail population is declining at the same time that the cat population is declining, this fact points to some other causal variable. It is, notably, of no mere coincidence that the observed quail decline matches the removal of low-growing shrubbery and use of poisons in City parks.

Given the available evidence to the opposite, we believe it is both incorrect and inappropriate to speculate that "invasive non-native species" are a significant cause for the decline of any species in San Francisco parks. In fact, unless we are going to conclude that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Commission on Animal Control and Welfare, the Golden Gate Park studies by biologist Robert Berg, and predation studies on four continents (13 studies in Europe, 12 in North America, nine in Australia, and one in Africa) are all wrong, cats and other animals should not be unfairly implicated in any perceived decimation of local wildlife.

3.      The Proposed Resolution is Anti-People.

Golden Gate Park is a great urban park, not a pristine native environment that mimics some mythical state of nature that existed in 1491, the year before Christopher Columbus set sail, or before the City was established and populated (indeed the park itself is a man-made construct). Our other parks are also surrounded by a heavily populated urban environment. And it is our City parks' recreational value that is of the utmost importance to San Franciscans. The parks serve the outdoor recreation needs of the people of this metropolitan region and their objective should remain to expand to the maximum extent possible the outdoor recreation opportunities available to our citizens.

Now, the Commission on the Environment is being asked whether our parks are going to be recreation areas -- nestled as they are on the edge of a major metropolitan area -- or whether they should be turned into pristine native environments, inaccessible to the bulk of individuals who use them now.

If the native habitat projects proposed under the current resolution succeed and begin to flourish and support new wildlife populations, will fences be erected and moved further and further, taking more and more space away from traditional recreational uses -- dictating that more cats should be rounded up, extricated and killed? That joggers and dogs must also keep out? That kids and families picnicking would no longer be welcome in these locations? And that the scores of others who use our parks -- Frisbee players, artists, joggers, skateboarders, bicycle enthusiasts, families and Tai Chi practitioners -- must also keep away? Will our parks be turned into native sand dunes, or worse, into fenced compounds -- off limits to all but the nativist stewards self-assigned to keep the rest of us out?

In January 2000, the following commentary appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s [Golden Gate] park was invaded by an ever-burgeoning population of "homeless" people. Wherever there was thick brush they made camp, dragging in mattresses and creating huge piles of rubbish. To circumvent these hidden encampments, San Francisco Park and Recreation eliminated most of the thickets, heavy brush and dense foliage, which was also habitat imperative for survival of [the quail]."

The comment further blamed "habitat loss -- squatting by humans" and the Park and Recreation department response as the "primary cause" for the quail's decline. If this is true, will the Commission also endorse a full-scale effort to kick the homeless out of the park?

4.      The Proposed Resolution Requires Killing Animals.

While presented as an innocuous measure, the lack of a balanced perspective in the proposed resolution is evident. And the proposed resolution is clear: It calls for the elimination of feral cat colonies, skunks, dogs running with their owners, and perhaps even people from the park. As to feral cats, the only way such a directive could be carried out is through the mass trapping and slaughter of innocent animals.

At The San Francisco SPCA, we wish every cat living today were a cherished companion. And we are working along with thousands of San Franciscans to achieve this goal by humanely trapping, spaying or neutering, and socializing feral cats for adoption. But many are too wild to adapt to a human home. For these cats, the humane response is to return them to their colonies, where they are watched over by compassionate caregivers and allowed to live out their natural lives without producing new generations of homeless cats.

The resolution's preoccupation with feral cats and other "non-native" animals deemed unworthy, however, is evident and pervasive, even if carefully masked.  Not surprising since prejudice and bias against the animals closest to us -- cats and dogs who are our daily companions -- is nothing new. The proposed resolution, although carefully worded to appear innocuous, mimics the original call for elimination of cats from these parks by the same proponents in 1993, which was thoroughly rejected by the San Francisco Commission on Animal Control and Welfare.

This resolution also comes from the same proponents who developed the same call in the draft Sustainability Plan, which apparently saw nothing amiss with ranking "irresponsible pet owners" (along with urban development and industrial pollution) as a major threat to biodiversity -- a point of view that has no basis in fact or logic. Had any animal groups been represented among the 400 people from City departments, private businesses and nonprofit organizations included in drafting the Sustainability Plan, this document might have reflected the proven benefits to human health, happiness and social well-being that companion animals provide

It took the thoughtful actions by unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors to remove that language from the final Plan before it was approved as a document for San Francisco's future -- a future of compassion and sensitivity for all life in keeping with the values of St. Francis.

5.      The Proposed Resolution Endorses the View of "Garbage" Animals.

The proposed resolution is based on a troubling belief: value comes from lineage, and worth as a species stems from being here first. The belief that some species of animals are worth more than others because they were here first is backward-thinking and shortsighted. But it is hardly surprising. The call for extermination of animals in the name of protecting others deemed more worthy by some arbitrary standard is not new. "Cats kill birds, so we must kill cats." This is the banner under which proponents of the proposed resolution have long rallied to label cats as the "pests" of our cities and "invasive non-native" intruders in our parks and countryside. But cats aren't the only ones to be targeted for slaughter in the name of protecting other species or reserving "native" habitats. They have been joined at different times and in different places by red foxes, gulls, cowbirds, sea lions, coyotes, mountain lions, ravens, skunks, raccoons, wild horses... the list goes on. Referred to as "garbage animals," "alien" species, "weeds," and "vermin," these creatures have become scapegoats for the massive habitat destruction, environmental degradation, and species extinction caused by one species and one species alone: Humans.

For nativists, the point is clear: the lives of these animals don't count, and therefore they can and should be eliminated to protect more important species and to preserve "natural" environments. Had we honored and preserved life, had we treated all animals -- cats, birds and every other creature who shares our planet -- with the respect they each deserve, we might have spared many of the species now lost forever.

To us, there are no "garbage animals" and slaughter and death aren't the tools we need to preserve life. To do that -- to preserve the life of all animals -- we believe we must honor and preserve the life of each.

6.      Conclusion

The San Francisco SPCA believes quail are deserving of our protection, not because they were "food" for a culture that existed 150 years ago.[2]  Nor because someone claims that they were here before European contact. Nor do we believe that killing other animals today will do justice to any heritage of the past. In rejecting the proposed resolution, a resolution steeped in the shortsightedness and  prejudice of the past, the Commission will be sending a powerful message -- a message that says killing is not an acceptable management tool for us to use as stewards of our nation's animals. Whether our challenges involve protecting wildlife, preserving species, or dealing with pet overpopulation, we have the power to build a new consensus that rejects killing as a method for achieving results. And we can look forward to a time when things like trapping, hunting, and slaughter are viewed as cruel aberrations of the past.

Instead of killing animals in a misguided attempt to "restore" the "purity" of some mythical time, we look forward to the day when every creature -- from the feral cat in Florida to the grizzly bear in Alaska -- will be respected and cherished... And where every individual life will be protected and revered.

---

 

---

Whale Wafting Season

Recently, a whale came to rest on the northern end of the beach at Fort Funston, near the Great Highway.
We don't have information yet about the type of whale, cause of death, just the burning question:

What do you do with a dead whale on the beach?

Roping it off is a first step (but dogs pretend they can't read the instructions on the yellow tape to stay back!)

But as the odor of decaying marine mammal wafts further and further up the beach, the burning question remains.

Burning the remains in question, however, wouldn't work. This problem has been faced countless times by humans, who have tried everything from explosives to towing out to sea to burying to quartering, often without success. Here are three interesting efforts from whale disposal history:

note: While the disposal issue is humorous (the whale is quite dead and it's an engineering challenge) the question of why many more grey whales (we don't know yet if this is a grey) are washing up dead on our shores is troubling, and as we discover more on this and other whale beachings, more information will follow.)

The Infamous Exploding Whale  (Dave Barry piece plus QuickTime video -- it didn't go as planned!)

40-ton Dead Whale Beached Herself in Normandy (also available en français)

Burying the humpback of Stinson Beach  - Point Reyes Light article

Firecrackers on the Beach -- Threat to Bank Swallows?

On Sunday, there seemed to be almost no bank swallows at their main colony site. Ordinarily, there would be several dozen flitting around and zipping in and out of their burrows in the cliff.

On closer inspection, there was a large amount of debris from fireworks on the beach nearby -- between the main colony and the "Gunmount", as well as just north of the northernmost bank swallow burrows and signs near the Great Highway.

Fireworks are and have been known to be a danger to the birds. In the past, the swallows seem to have abandoned their site after such a scare. We don't know if that has happened here, but can't help wonder why so much time and money were put into fencing off ten acres far from the burrows, while known dangers such as firecrackers are not prevented. Also, in the northern area of the beach there are still fenceposts sitting right above the burrows, which have been a convenient spot from which kestrels can swoop in on bank swallow hatchlings. The Park Service claims to have installed chicken wire on these posts to keep these predators away, but it doesn't appear to have been done or maintained in several areas.

The National Park Service's credibility is eroded by the lack of attention to two known threats to the birds, while at the same time using unproven claims of a threat from dogs and hikers to discontinue recreational use of park lands.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor

 

UPDATE: There seemed to be more bank swallows on Monday, though fewer than average. And apparently the Park Service does plan to guard the site tonight, as it has in the past few years on the 4th itself. We'll see how things look later in the week.

---

Statement on Off-Leash Dog Walking at Fort Funston

Recent and prior closures could represent a Park Service attempt to eventually eliminate all off-leash dogwalking at Fort Funston. Here is why off-leash dogwalking is a legal activity at Fort Funston:

Fort Funston has been a dogwalking park for almost 40 years. Hundreds of people and dogs visit its safe and beautiful open space every day of the year. There are almost no other such places left for healthy exercise in our crowded urban environment.

Legislation enabling the federal government to take control of Fort Funston from San Francisco in 1972 specifically included dogwalking as a recreational activity. Historical documents and testimony establish that off-leash dogwalking was a legitimate recreational activity when Fort Funston was transferred to the National Park Service.

Therefore, off-leash dogwalking rights may not be taken away at Fort Funston without public input.

---

FT. FUNSTON SWEATSHIRTS, T-SHIRTS & BANDANAS AVAILABLE

The flag outside the ranger station at Fort Funston was at half-mast for a week in June, honoring a park ranger, two volunteers and their pilot who were killed when their small plane crashed in Alaska's Denali National Park.

"We had the best rescue crews in the state involved in this search today," said Superintendent Stephen P. Martin. "All of our hearts are aching, these men were members of the community of Talkeetna and the National Park Service. There are no words to describe what an incredible loss this is."  Press Release    News Report

We may not agree with all of the Park Service's policies, but this is a good time to remember that many good people work hard and sometimes risk their lives in its service. At Fort Funston, we depend on the local rangers to protect and rescue visitors -- both human and canine. Sometimes, the political is not personal. In our battle over Fort Funston policy at the legal and political level, we're using the courts of law and public opinion. But let's maintain and build friendship and respect for the individual Park Service employees on the ground at Fort Funston.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor

---

---

The '95 northern closure was for the bank swallow habitat. But the swallows don't go there anymore. If you go there, you'll see these signs, just thirty feet apart (photo: April 17th.) One cites the bank swallow habitat; the other, native plant restoration.

"have tended to view science with anything from benign neglect to outright hostility. The result has been a number of decisions that have been slammed by scientists, challenged in court, and even debated in Congress..."

"A 1992 study by the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, found that 'almost invariably... management of the parks was done with inadequate understanding of ecological systems.' And the science that has been done has often been manipulated to support policy, critics allege. Park managers 'have very carefully controlled the actual research that's done and the reporting of that research,' says ecologist Fred Wagner of Utah State University in Logan, citing studies of elk and grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park.".

"Critics also question the extent of support for the science program among top Park Service leaders. 'Part of the challenge is to change the culture of the Park Service,' concedes [Gary Machlis, an outside scientist helping steer the science plan at the NPS.]  Each park is a fiefdom ruled by its superintendent, and superintendents vary in their interest in science, [NPS historian Richard] Sellars points out. Indeed, only one superintendent from the largest parks rose from the ranks of resource managers rather than park rangers. [The leader of the new science program, Michael] Soukup wants to address that by promoting resource managers and grading superintendents on how well they use science. After all, the best scientific advice in the world won't help if no one at the top is listening."

[ 1. ]  "Bringing Science to the National Parks" by Jocelyn Kaiser, SCIENCE, 7 April 2000, p. 34.

---

The government attorney claimed that "The resources at Fort Funston right now are not in as good shape as they should be" and went on to suggest that the park should be restored to be "as it was" in the past.

What is meant by the "past". I saw that land during the Korean War (1950-54) when the Western Army Antiaircraft Command had an anti-aircraft battery there. I was aide-de-camp to the CG of WAAC and we visited the site because of the problem of blowing sand and the sand dust sensitive computer, radar and and antiaircraft guns which were there. The area was moving dunes and the WAAC worked to strengthen the ice plant which was already there and stabilized the dunes insofar as they were stable. I was not aware of native plants in any profusion such as exists in the north enclosed area after much prolonged effort by the Park Service and their Native Plant fanatics. If the area had had a cover such as that, it would have been a fire hazard what with an entire battery of men living there.

I could argue that the removal of the ice plant and the moisture it retains all year sustaining a healthy soil is what has injured the nesting habits of the birds. For all we know, the decline of their population was stimulated by DDT in Mexico, or the place where they spend the winters or summers rather than the place where they merely breed. If the bird colony has been there since 1927 then it had adapted to living with the ice plant. The introduction of species arbitrarily designated as native (who defines "native"?) coincides with the confusion of the birds as to their nesting sites.

You might also argue that it was the ice plant which encouraged the species there in the first place. This I do argue is a case of the Law of unintended consequences. The do gooders destroy the habitat in the name of some higher good: native plants. By removing the existing cover they destroy the habitat to which the birds had adapted.

Fort Funston, in the 20th and probably in the 19th century has been just that: a military Fort with all the concerns that a military post has for livability, utility, etc. First it was the coast artillery; then it was the antiaircraft artillery. The ice plant was a very practical solution to a serious problem: moving dunes and blowing sand. Just as the eucalyptus tree was a very practical way to obtain shade along el camino real which so often traversed chaparral. I am prepared to argue that they are both natives today: Not the plants which were never really there and which in any case did not prevent the dunes from moving the way the ice plant did and does yet when left alone. I have a feeling that FF became a recreation area after the aircraft carrier and long range bombers made it obsolete. The military needed to justify holding onto coastal property "just in case it is ever needed".

Comments? Click here

---

My Heart Is Broken     by J. Davis   April 15, 2000

I was not able to be at the 14 April court hearing because I was having a facet nerve block at that exact time (needles injecting fluid into my spine), although I was with all of you in spirit. I am terribly upset about the closure of the Sunset Trail and I want to do everything I can to help the Fort Funston Dog Walkers fight this issue.

My story: I moved to this area in the Fall of 1998 and immediately fell in love with Fort Funston. I feel a special calling to that place; it's one of my favorite spots on this planet. My husband and I are allergic to dogs, but we love getting out and watching all the dogs bounding over the hills filled with joy at their freedom. The views of the Pacific and the sky are stunning, and the park is quiet and safe.

Fort Funston took on a new meaning for me in September of 1999 when I herniated a disk and became disabled. Because I cannot sit without incapacitating pain, I am unable to work. As part of my physical therapy, when I could still walk, I was walking almost daily on the Sunset Trail, which was level (I cannot walk up slopes) and paved (I cannot walk in uneven sand) and had the kind of scenery that would drag me out of my depression and pain and get me to exercise. Then I became too injured to even do that, and I did not make it to Fort Funston for months. But I always counted on the Sunset Trail to be there when I was able to learn to walk again. I was deeply dismayed to find out that it has been closed. I went up a week or so ago to view the convergence of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars with the moon, and walked out on the trail to see for myself where the pavement ended and where mere sand--opened at that time to dog walkers--remained. It sickened me.

I believe that this may be a valid Americans with Disabilities Act issue, because my access to the park is now nearly void. (Most other trails involve hills and stairs, I believe; that was the only level, paved section.) Even though I am not in a wheelchair, I am unable to walk my beloved park now. A wheelchair-bound person is more visually obviously but similarly screwed in terms of access now.

This is all somewhat ironic for me because I am a beginning birder myself. I want the needs of dogs, humans, and swallows and other birds to be balanced. But I do not feel that all of these needs were taken into consideration in the behind-closed-doors process used by the Park Service. I agree with the Fort Funston Dog Walkers that this issue needs to be decided in the public domain with more studies.

Thank you for keeping the web site up-to-date; it was a relief to be able to log on today, one day after the hearing, and to read such a thorough description of what happened. I learned about this whole issue from your website in the first place, since I hadn't been to Fort Funston since January (when I went with my parents right before my first injection procedure, hobbling out just to the deck). Anyway, your website probably has impact that you never imagined, and thanks again for the obvious hard work that's gone into it.

I will be sending my donation check to the legal fund today and would be happy to help out as much as I can given my limited mobility. Thank you for taking up the cause and organizing so well. It isn't just the dog walkers who are affected, although I am still amazed by the strength and persistence of how you have all organized to save the park for all of us.

Comments? Click here

Bluff Failures on the Sunset Trail - {from March 31st issue}

---

They're back!

Share your sightings -- when, where, how many... new feature:

"The Court's not going to rule right now," U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup declared to a packed courtroom at the conclusion of the Friday, April 14th injunction hearing. The motion is under submission while the judge takes time to think about the issues raised. Then he expects to issue a written order, probably within the next week. The judge remarked to the audience that the dog walkers should be very proud of their lawyers, whom he commended for their excellent work and commitment to the public interest.

Tossing aside a pile of interrelated issues, the judge repeatedly returned to the point that, "The only question is whether [the National Park Service] should have held a public hearing." Was there a point in time, he asked, when they asked themselves, "Is this highly controversial?" The government did not present evidence that the Park Service had made any determination as to whether their intended closures would likely be highly controversial or might result in significant alteration in public land use patterns. Yet the trail of evidence from discovery shows that they did indeed expect controversy and planned ways to avoid input from dog owners who might disagree with their plans. To the extent that they did prepare a memorandum of their plans, it was filed a few days after, and perhaps as a result of, the dog walkers' lawsuit threat. (On February 25th, the dog walkers let the Park Service know that they were considering filing for a Temporary Restraining Order. One week later on March 3rd the Park Service issued their memorandum justifying the closures which were already in progress. The judge questioned whether this could "suggest this was done in anticipation of litigation, to fix the record up.")

"It sort of sounds like the Park Service is afraid to let the public have input," remarked the judge, after saying that, "There was some evidence that would support the proposition that the officials in the Park Service recognized that the dog walkers would not be happy with the decision and wanted to run it through as quickly as possible."

"It sounds like as soon as the D-day boats are launched, they want them on the cliffs immediately so there won't be any time for opposition," continued the judge. A number of times in the dog walkers' brief the Park Service's own e-mail suggests a deliberate plan to implement the fence-building very quickly, with a public relations person on site to deal with any problems.

If the judge does decide that there has been a violation of the law in that the Park Service did not go through the proper public rulemaking and comment process mandated for a "highly controversial" change, or a major change in the use pattern of the park, he noted that he would likely have a separate hearing to see if there was a remedy for that.

It could be that the result would be that the Park Service would have to go through the legally-mandated process of publication in the Federal Register, a sixty-day comment period, and then issue a decision. The decision might be the same one, but at least the law would have been followed and park users would have the chance to organize and speak out on the issue.

A partial temporary restraining order has been in effect since the initial March 14th hearing. This order permitted the Park Service to go ahead with the permanent closure area, but not to seal access to the seasonal closure area. The only way that could be done, the judge said at the previous hearing, would be for the Park Service to declare an emergency upon the return of the bank swallows. In the case of a so-called "emergency", the Park Service has wide discretion to close areas with no notice or input. That's precisely what happened two days prior to the hearing, when the Park Service declared an emergency and closed the seasonal area.

Another issue that has bothered the dog walkers is the fact that the previous bank swallow closure, at the very north end of Fort Funston, remains closed even though the reason for the new closures is said to be that the birds have moved their burrows south, and no longer nest in the originally closed zone. "So, if they're no longer in the north end, why don't you open that up?" the judge inquired. The very steep cliffs which the bank swallows apparently require are no longer in existence in the previous closure area, due to El Niño storm erosion. The defense claimed that the area still must be left available for the bank swallows, just in case they decide to nest there in the future. (The Audubon Society has also recommended that the Sunset Trail area be permanently closed so as to protect the cliffs below, although there has been no evidence presented of bank swallows active in that area, either.)

The government attorney claimed that "The resources at Fort Funston right now are not in as good shape as they should be" and went on to suggest that the park should be restored to be "as it was" in the past. This is similar to charges made at the Advisory Commission meeting comment period on March 21st; both charges are presented with no specific evidence to back them up. A decision to change Fort Funston's habitat is a major one for which the Park Service acknowledges it has no written plan.

The Audubon Society (which joined the case on the government's side early on) argued through its attorney that Federal rulemaking was not required in this case, which is the main claim of the Park Service. The judge challenged the Audubon attorney on this point. If the situation were reversed, he said, if the government said "forget it, take down the fences", and did not take any action supposedly on behalf of the bank swallows, wouldn't the Audubon Society be in court arguing the opposite position -- that rulemaking was required?

There were smaller instances of haggling over technicalities, representative of an ongoing habit of the Park Service in and out of court to come up with somewhat suspect explanations for unfavorable facts. Two examples: It's a matter of record that the Park Service originally presented this newest closure acreage to the public -- and even to the Court -- as approximately six acres, only to later correct that to over nine acres. This was explained in court as resulting from technical changes in the GPS equipment accuracy having improved in the intervening period to better measure changes in topography. In the other case, a map was presented in court which had been handed out at Fort Funston by a staff person. However, the defense challenged the map and a ranger declared that it was only a draft which had been created by a student working with a previous employee, and was never finalized for public use. (The map showed beach access at the area now in the permanent closure, known as "The Gap." At issue was whether that passage was ever officially considered a beach access route. The judge then refused to consider the map or the issue it raised, that one of three beach access routes had been blocked.)

The Park Service also claimed in its newest closure signs (see photo below) that the bank swallows are an "endangered species." This is patently false; they are categorized as "California threatened", and even in California are plentiful in the inland river areas such as along the Sacramento River. They are more commonly found in states outside California. The judge was advised of the illegitimate "endangered" claim, but said that this wasn't relevant as the Park Service could do whatever it wanted under an emergency ruling -- it wouldn't even have to find them threatened.

One undocumented claim was a purported survey of park users in support of the project, presented by the Assistant United States Attorney. However, upon questioning from the judge, the attorney could not provide details on this survey, which was not included in the court record, and could not even say what the wording of the question had been.

The crucial factor in the current situation is the decision of the Park Service just two days before the hearing to declare a state of emergency, allowing for closure without hearing or comment.

"The Park Service has made a complete end-run around this lawsuit by declaring this emergency" the judge noted. Was there indeed a genuine emergency requiring closure of the entire area to protect the bank swallows? An "arbitrary and capricious" closure could be challenged via an amendment to the original complaint, despite the wide berth the Park Service enjoys for managing its land as it sees fit. Although the dog walkers have made it clear that they support protection of the bank swallows nesting habitat along the cliffs, and might accept a fence along the edge of the cliffs, they reject strongly the notion that a closure area of nearly ten acres that extends way back from the coast is necessary.

The judge seemed most intent on determining what might happen in August, after the bank swallows leave on their southern migration -- then would the area be opened again, would the emergency be lifted? He suggested, but did not order, that the government begin looking into going through the required rulemaking process for publication in the Federal Register and an opportunity for comment over a 60-day period.

As soon as more details are available, or a court order is released, the information will be available on this website. Meanwhile, if you have comments for publication, please send them in via e-mail.

Following is the April 12 letter to Judge Alsup from the government, as well as the memorandum of the same day from the Park Service which declares an emergency over the return, as every year since at least 1927, of the bank swallows to Fort Funston. The two referenced supporting documents are ten pages long and may be published on this site in the future.

---

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

10th Floor, Federal Building, Box 36055

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

(415) 436-7180

FAX: (415) 436-6748

 

 April 12, 2000   

VIA MESSENGER                     

The Honorable William H. Alsup

United States District Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

         Re:     Ft. Funston Dog Walkers, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, et al.

                   C 00 0877 WHA

Dear Judge Alsup:

       This is to advise you that Park Service personnel confirmed sightings of bank swallows in the vicinity of the seasonal closure area at Ft. Funston yesterday afternoon, shortly after the Court and parties left the park.

       Based on consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and the Audubon Society, and on the NPS guidance requiring protection of special status species and the determination in the March 3, 2000 memorandum, the Park Service has determined that an emergency situation exists that requires closure of the seasonal closure area at Ft. Funston in order to protect the habitat of the state threatened bank swallow. The emergency closure is authorized by Section 1.5 of 36 C.F.R. A Park Service memorandum documenting this action, Subject: Emergency Closure of Bank Swallow Habitat - Fort Funston, is enclosed.

        Inasmuch as the basis for the Park Service's closure of the area (i.e., now an emergency) has changed from that which was the case when the Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint, it appears that the issues raised by the Complaint are now moot.

       Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

United States Attorney

 

CHARLES M. O'CONNOR

Assistant United States Attorney

CMO: sc

Enclosure

cc: (via facsimile)

       Lydia Owen Boesch, Esq.

       John Keating, Esq.

       Kelly L. Drumm, Esq.

       Nicole J. Walthall, Esq.

---

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

Fort Mason, San Francisco, California 94123

N1621 (GOGA-SUPT)

April 12, 2000

Memorandum

To:            Files

Through:   General Superintendent, Golden Gate NRA

From:       Assistant Superintendent, Operations, Golden Gate NRA

Subject:    Emergency Closure of Bank Swallow Habitat - Fort Funston

   

This memorandum documents the emergency closure of bank swallow habitat at Fort Funston which was implemented on April 12, 2000 at approximately 9:00 a.m. Section 1.5 of 36 C.F.R., Closures and Public Use Limits, permits closures in emergency situations without completing the formal documentation and public notice requirements of Sections 1.5 and 1.7. The emergency closure of the seasonal-closure area is necessary for the protection of natural resources, specifically bank swallow habitat at Fort Funston, one of only two remaining coastal cliff-dwelling colonies in California.

In anticipation of the return of the bank swallow to the bluffs at Fort Funston, the park began non-emergency closure procedures in accordance with 36 C.F.R. Section 1.5. A March 3, 200 memorandum to the files was prepared that justified the determination that the permanent and seasonal closure areas for purposes of natural resource protection, native habitat restoration and public safety, and documented the public notice provided for such closure. Fencing of the permanent closure area was completed on March 20, 2000. Fencing of the seasonal area was completed on March 17, 2000, with access gates to remain open until the bank swallows returned to nest at Fort Funston.

On March 13, 2000, before the swallows returned, the Fort Funston dog walkers and other affiliated groups filed for a temporary restraining order in Federal Court, seeking to prevent further fencing work at the site and to allow the area to remain open for recreational activities. On Tuesday, March 14th, the Dog Walkers' request was partially granted on a temporary basis, whereby the gates accessing the seasonal closure area were ordered to stay open, but fencing of the permanent closure area could continue and, when completed, could remain closed. The court order set a hearing on the issue of the closures for April 14, 2000, and permitted the National Park Service to close the seasonal area if an emergency situation arose before the April 14th hearing.

Bank swallows have been nesting at Fort Funston since at least 1927 and typically arrive in late March or early April. On April 11, 2000, bank swallows were observed in the vicinity of the seasonal closure area. In consulting with the California Department of Fish & Game and the Audubon Society (attached hereto), and based upon the NPS guidance requiring protection of special status species (NPS Management Policies, Chapter 4, and NPS-77) and the determination contained in the March 3, 2000 memorandum, the park has determined that an emergency situation exists that requires closure of the seasonal closure area at Fort Funston in order to protect the habitat of the state threatened bank swallow. Accordingly, the seasonal area was gated and closed to public access on April 12, 2000, at approximately 9:00 a.m.

Based on the above, this memorandum serves as a determination that emergency closure of the subject area is necessary for the protection of natural resources, and no less restrictive measures would suffice.

[Signed, Terri Thomas, for]

Mary G. Scott

Assistant Superintendent

Attachments (2):

Declaration by Ronald Schlorff of April 3, 2000

Letter from Audubon Society of April 5, 2000

 

 

---

[ from Thursday, April 13, 2000 ]

Gate Accompli

Remarkable timing: we're told that the bank swallows are back! Wednesday, April 12, 2000 -- just two days before the injunction hearing -- locked gates appeared and the seasonal closure went into effect.

 

Note the remaining scraps of dog photos from March 4th protest!

CLICK HERE to see those photos.

---

CLICK HERE for Yahoo map of Civic Center / Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue (between Polk & Larkin)

---

Help Make History!

For so long, all we could do was complain to each other about one problem after another at Fort Funston. And we were good at that! But then all of a sudden the Sunset Trail was simply closed with no warning or explanation. When that was followed shortly by the deployment of closures and ugly fences over ancient sand dunes, in the name of nature but without a basis in natural science, we finally said, "Enough!" We haven't stopped since.  Where the Park Service expected a brief brouhaha to be smoothed over with an onsite flak, instead we filed a federal lawsuit and discovered the truth -- and it was worse than we'd imagined. We'd been kept in the dark while a major change in the park's use was put into motion -- the park where we make up the overwhelming majority of users.

It's hard to see in the rush of events (we're all operating in accelerated dog years lately!) but this is history in the making. We have the opportunity to establish a clear judicial precedent in the course of this trial, which could affect federal court decisions for years to come. And the outcome may well affect off-leash opportunities for many years.

This is literally "a federal case" -- it's serious, folks! It's not some frivolous lawsuit just because we're mad.

See where it began with the original complaint, review the astounding facts discovered and documented in the brief (or the briefer summary in the booklet), check out the hard-hitting reply brief and think about what it took to prepare all the meticulously studied and referenced source documents. We've got a team of attorneys and others, all putting in superhuman effort to make sure we are heard.

But we need money to do that, and we need it now. In this moment, as we all hold our breaths and await the next step in the case, we need to pull out our checkbooks and contribute to the legal fund. Make as large a contribution as you possibly can -- there have been contributions in the thousands of dollars from individuals, and much smaller ones which add up to thousands. Write the check and put it in today's mail!

There are two organizations involved in this fight and contributions may be made to both organizations. If you are a Fort Funston Dog Walkers member, make a contribution to FFDW. On the other hand, if you are an SFDOG member, make a contribution to SFDOG. If you are a member of both, hey! contribute twice! If you are a member of neither, hey! join both! Send a contribution to one or both of legal funds now. The following are the instructions for making a contribution: . . .

"We believe we fairly set forth the facts in the brief. We believe there is a lot of controversy as to what is best for the bank swallows, and that the controversy needs to be aired out in order to reach the best solution for the bird . We also think that the facts establish that GGNRA was not forthcoming with lots of people, including the Court." - Lydia Owen Boesch, Attorney for Fort Funston Dog Walkers et al.   4/3/00  

---

Rotating Closure Signs & Reasons

Please wait for this sequence of three photos to load. Unless you have a very fast connection, it may take a few minutes, but it's interesting so don't give up; wait for the slide show!

Here is a typical example of the trouble with the Fort Funston closures. This lovely large parcel of land, including also a chunk above and to the left behind the trees, was closed in 1995, without public input, for the express purpose of native plant restoration. Native plant restoration was NOT done and the site continued to be shut off from public use. Now that this has been brought to light through the lawsuit and publicity, just in the past month the native plant signs have been removed, and a few days later replaced by signs claiming a safety need. This is evidenced in the photo sequence on top, all photos taken at the "L" corner on the Sunset Trail near the new bench that faces out to sea.

You can see from the photo above that most of this land is set way back from the cliffs, so what is the safety issue here? It's hard to not make fun of a process that is so transparent, but at the same time it is deeply maddening that so much public land has been shut off for reasons that clearly aren't valid.

---

Rudy's Walk

Hi, I'm Rudy! Please wait a couple of minutes, then come with me for a walk I used to take. It goes through a historic ruin, a wonderful valley, up over a splendid dune, down a chute to the beach, into the water, and back down the beach. Now proposed to be off-limits, AND the viewscape ruined by new fences. Why?

---

Bluff Failures on The Sunset Trail 

   

---

Oh....., Wheely?

The Sunset Trail is an important and very popular section of Fort Funston. For many people visiting the Fort for the first time, it's their Main Street. It heads right out from the parking lot, towards a beautiful view of the coast and the Marin headlands. It's long been used by dog walkers, tourists, whale-watchers, folks interested in its historic gun-batteries -- and especially by people with wheelchairs and strollers, because it's a paved trail. Or, rather, it was paved. Then out of the blue one day early this year, the Sunset Trail was closed, apparently for good, if not for good reason.

---

This photo was taken after the recent removal of the pavement on the Sunset Trail. It shows the one small area of roadway erosion on the entire trail. Do you have any photos that might help establish the true condition of the pavement and benches last fall?  Please click here to let the Fort Funston Forum know! Thanks. - Editor.

---

  Why was the Sunset Trail closed, whereas other erosion damage remained simply shored up --

or ignored?

---

For quite a while areas were closed without notice, explanation, opportunity for comment, or future plans given. When notices were posted, they often didn't match the current date or situation. Here, outside the northern Battery Davis entrance road, a three-day closure sign remained in place ten days after the work was to have been completed, as the camera's date stamp indicates.

---

How much money was spent to tear out and move around this asphalt? Why was it considered OK to simply shut down a major trail, one that the GGNRA itself mentions on its own website as being noteworthy for its accessibility?

---

  

Now, and only thanks to strong protests a few weeks ago, the Sunset Trail is said to be "open" -- with new benches, which weren't needed -- but it's not open to most people who use wheelchairs or strollers, because of the uneven surface and deep sand.

Once again, we're left in the dark. Is the trail to be re-paved? Left as is? Closed again? Will that depend once more on how much of a stink people make about it?

Sunset on the Sunset Trail, March 29, 2000.

---

see also: Comments at GGNRA Advisory Commission meeting 3/21/2000

-- especially those of John Cranshaw, Jeff Ward & Florence Sarrett.

---

Special Notice

ACCESS FOR EVERYONE!

The entire contents of the above section on the Sunset Trail (with spoken text and text descriptions of each photograph) are accessible to blind and visually impaired people by using the IBM Home Page Reader (or other similar products.) Even if you're not visually impaired, you might find it interesting to listen to this entire page with your eyes closed. You can download a free 30-day trial of the program at:

http://www-3.ibm.com/able/hpr.htm

It uses Netscape Navigator (a part of Communicator) as your default browser, although you can still use Microsoft's Internet Explorer when not browsing with the IBM Home Page Reader.

Netscape's browser is also free, it's at:

http://www.netcenter.com/computing/download/index.html?cp=hom03x4

Please spread the word to people who could use these programs to browse the Web.

Also, please send feedback on using the IBM talking browser, whether or not you are visually impaired. Feel free to e-mail with questions about setting these programs up on your computer. I am trying to get feedback from people using them. Thank you. - Michael

For information on making your site accessible to all, visit: Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST):      http://www.cast.org/

To find out about a website for yourself, your business or dog, please inquire.

... and now we return to our regularly scheduled program...

---

The Bureau That Cried Wolf     

A Funston Fable

Once upon a time, there was a big bureaucracy that was in the habit of doing just whatever it felt like. The big bureaucracy didn't like having to tell anybody, even the people who loved to come visit it all the time, what it was going to do. But even the big bureaucracy had to sometimes appear to follow the law, so from time to time when its actions were hard to explain, it began to yell at everyone who would listen, "Emergency!" At first, everyone was very careful to heed these warnings of the big bureaucracy, even when its actions didn't seem to make sense. Surely, they reasoned, in an Emergency! everyone ought to listen to the warning and do exactly as they were told. But, as time went on, there kept being more and more Emergencies! One time, a road with just a teensy-weensy spot that needed to be fixed, was ripped out of the ground from one end to the other! Nobody knew why this happened, and it was said that the road was going to be closed for ever and ever. The people who loved to come visit knew that road, and they could not see any kind of Emergency! about it or why it should be torn out and closed. They began to talk amongst themselves, and even began thinking for themselves based on things they saw with their own eyes! "Sometimes when the big bureaucracy shouts out, 'Emergency!', it's just saying that; it doesn't really mean it!," said one of the visitors. Another replied, "It can't be bothered to explain itself all the time, it's a big bureaucracy!" Every year in the springtime, a colony of bank swallows would fly thousands of miles north to have their babies at the place where the people loved to visit. Even though everyone knew this was going to happen in the springtime, some people whispered that the big bureaucracy was going to shout, "Emergency!" when the swallows arrived. Then it would be able to keep all the people far, far away from the swallows who came back every year to where the people also came to visit. After a while, nobody even paid any attention when they heard someone shouting, "Emergency!" That was a very bad thing, because once in a very long while, at the place where the people and the birds loved to come visit, a very real and scary emergency would indeed happen. The people should have listened to the big bureaucracy at those rare times, and been very careful to do do as they were told. But it was too late. By that time, nobody would even turn around when they heard the word, "Emergency!"

by Michael B. Goldstein

---

---

---

How's the weather at Fort Funston?   Know before you go!

Web cam, Wind & Temperature!  and, support the web cam!

---

 

---

---

Demonstration outside, comments inside, at GGNRA Advisory Commission Meeting, Fort Mason Tue. March 21

---

 

To PRINT the comments below, click here for page with nothing else. It may take a minute or two to load and appear on your screen, then print it.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Advisory Commission Meeting March 21, 2000, Fort Mason, Bldg. 201

Transcript from audiotape of public comments regarding Fort Funston (transcribed by, please send comments, questions, & corrections to: Michael B. Goldstein )

(very brief portions of the audiotape that could not be understood after repeated playing are shown as: .......... ; in no case does this change the overall meaning of the statement involved, and the missing sections are never more than a few words in length)

7:30 p.m. -   Meeting called to order.                      Eight agenda items were discussed.  11:17 p.m. - Beginning of comment period on non-agenda items:

 

Andrea O'Leary: I guess I'm here basically to say that I think it's really important that we take a really good and long look at the whole context of sacred places. I grew up on a ranch in New Mexico of thousands and thousands of acres but yet there were sacred places on all... this land -- one family, lots of land, there are sacred places. And it was because my great grandfather, my grandfather, my father, and now my brothers, knew that these areas were so special and had such wonderful creatures on them, that they had to be preserved. And I still plan my trips home at certain times of the year so that I can tip-toe through those areas, at those given times when we're allowed to, because there are special species: quail, vertebrates, invertebrates, and creepy-crawlers, that you basically cannot find anywhere else, and this is in the middle of nowhere, in New Mexico. And I think that people tend to forget that we do have even those sacred places here in this urban environment. I've spent a long time trying, volunteering, going out with people from San Francisco State and other places, just to see what kind of creepy-crawlers have come back. And so I see for myself with my novice eyes, a lot of the creatures that are falling away, little insignificant little creatures, simply because we are running them out, we are stomping them into the ground. I can tell you areas where lots of dog activity does not happen where there are a lot of these creatures coming back, slowly, and there are others areas where you just, year after year, you just don't find them anymore. So that, there are places that are inappropriate for lots of dog activity, for lots of people activity, for activity that is going to, indeed, ....... over these very precious creatures. So Fort Funston isn't any different than any other place in the middle of San Francisco, Mount Davidson, ........., anywhere else, or in the middle of New Mexico. Thank you.   John Cranshaw: I'll make this very quick. First of all, I want to say thank you very much. I'm a longtime San Francisco resident and a physician, and I'm here to speak... to Fort Funston as well, particularly with regard to two issues: one is access, the other is process. I care for approximately 40 chronically ill, wheelchair-bound patients. The facility where I work endeavors to provide these patients opportunities for outdoor recreation, and there are few areas in San Francisco accessible to these patients. Fort Funston is one such area, and the recent removal of the paving in the Sunset Path area makes this area inaccessible to my patients, as well as to other sick persons. I would request this committee, if at all possible, to request that the GGNRA -- that they re-pave that. The decision to close the Sunset Trail, ostensibly for safety reasons, only to re-open it, in worse condition than before, I believe highlights major problems in the decision-making process that goes on at Fort Funston. This has repeated itself many times, over the years, whereby, instead of consulting with the affected parties before plans have been implemented, the GGNRA implements the plans, then a controversy develops -- in this case a lawsuit develops -- and then some or all of the actions that the GGNRA has taken have to be reversed. This is in nobody's interest. I would submit that by excluding the participation of the majority of individuals who actually visit Fort Funston, the GGNRA has set the stage for continued acrimony and legal......, which is not in your interest, not in my interest, is not in anyone's interest. I would request that you work with, rather than against, those who use Fort Funston, so that it can remain the beautiful, multi-use area, that it has always been. Thank you very much.   Linda Shore: Thank you, members of the commission, members of the public. My name is Linda Shore and I'm a native San Franciscan. I'm also here to speak about the controversy at Fort Funston. The parks that made up the GGNRA have been an important part of my life for over 40 years now. I literally took my first steps at Crissy Field, and I walk my dog every day at Fort Funston. By the way, I also generously contribute to the Audubon Society and to native plant conservation efforts. Let me say then that the controversy at Fort Funston is not about dogs, it's not about birds, it's not about native plants. It's about people. It's about the manner in which the GGNRA makes its decisions, and about how these decisions impact people. And it's about how people are forced to react when their needs are ignored and all avenues for input are literally closed off. The people you see here tonight -- those who are left! -- and the people you saw outside when you came in, represent just a small fraction of the number of people profoundly hurt by the decisions made to close certain areas of Fort Funston. We love Fort Funston because it's an integral part of our lives. When the fences went up, people got frightened -- I got frightened. We watched helplessly as an important part of our lives was literally stripped from us. And while the closures represent a very small, albeit extremely popular part of Fort Funston, we have absolutely no idea how these decisions were made, whether these decisions were grounded in sound scientific research, and more importantly, we have no idea where it will ultimately end. I submit that when the GGNRA makes decisions in secret, unilaterally, and without meaningful input from the public, you get what you're seeing now: rumors are generated and propagated, conspiracy is seen everywhere, factions become more polarized, and positions become entrenched. Surely no one's interests -- not the dogs, the swallows, the plants, or even the GGNRA, are served when this happens. I urge this advisory board take action to fundamentally change the way the GGNRA makes and carries out its decisions about the parks. Advise the GGNRA to make its intentions public. Tell them to hold open meetings. Include all stakeholders in the decision-making process, even those stakeholders you think you may not agree with. Doing anything less condemns the GGNRA and the public to do battle indefinitely. Thank you.   Rich Bartke, Advisory Commission Chair and meeting moderator: Before we go on, I'm going to do something I probably shouldn't do, but I want to remind people that this was on our agenda in January, a number of dogwalkers from Fort Funston did address us on that issue, that last month we extended another invitation to the leadership of the dogwalkers to get a formal spot on our agenda so they could speak to us on this issue, and that invitation has not been accepted. To say that we've been taking actions in secret is simply not fair. So let's talk about facts, how they actually happen.   Linda McKay: Hi, I'm Linda McKay. Thank you for listening to us so late in the evening. I want to correct a couple of points. I am a member of the Fort Funston Dog Walkers. We represent one of the factions that apparently was invited to get on your agenda, and, honestly, I never received an invitation. So there is a communication failure if you think you submitted an invitation to us; it was simply not known by our membership. We need to work on the communication. The other part I'd like to clarify is that we did have meetings, we've been meeting frequently with the GGNRA, on other issues. We had a walk-through in December of '98, we had a walk-through in December of '99, to talk about things like: we wanted to fund a water fountain, we need more garbage cans, you know, that kind of thing, and the bank swallow issue came up as a very peripheral discussion. We did not understand that our input was being elicited, we did not understand that it was a happening thing, we thought it was a submission of what might be. And at the meeting of January 18th was a "not for public comment" presentation by the GGNRA. So the decision had been made without our input. I think that's an important point. The second point I'd like to say is, I think there's more points of interest than there are of disinterest. I think with out input, and if we work with the factions that represent the other points of view, we could do a better job. What I brought is a color picture of what we call the "internal" fence. This fence is going to enclose the permanent enclosure, which completely closes off the valley that is very commonly used by recreational users. And I think that, had we worked together, we could have done a much better job on this; this is not attractive, and it doesn't do anyone any good. The third point I'd like to make is that we are asking for your help. We would like to have public hearings -- we think that we're entitled to it because we think that this was a major change in recreational use, and we think because of that, we were entitled to a hearing, with all groups present, with all facts at the table. And public comment at the end of your meeting at 11:30 at night is probably not the best way to hear us. ...   Anne Farrow: Good evening, although I think it's time to say goodnight, well, several hours ago! My name is Anne Farrow. I'm also here to address the closures at Fort Funston. I was at Fort Funston the day it opened as a San Francisco city park, October 29th, 1961. It was an open space to explore and enjoy. In 1972, my daughter and the GGNRA were born. The GGNRA was a vision of open space recreation for an urban population. It was a promise to keep that space open for recreation. The GGNRA has grown to more than 74,000 acres, now... 75,300 -- or soon to be, including Fort Funston. In 1995, my children were grown, and I started visiting Fort Funston on a daily basis with my dog. However, the vision had changed. Two large areas had been recently fenced, apparently without consulting park users. The promise had been broken. This year, 2000, a popular trail was destroyed, and a popular dune area was fenced. The fence is not only unpopular, but unnecessary. It's not designed to preserve and protect resources, a mandate in the scope of the National Park Service, but in fact has destroyed recreational resources, and is designed to create resources that probably never existed. Protecting the bank swallows on the cliffs, and protecting the occasional clueless visitor from the cliffs, would require a fence in a different location: near the cliff. The fence in its current location is visual pollution and is, well, offensive. Those of us who visit Fort Funston daily are in tune with the park. We're involved in its natural rhythms. We understand the weather, the erosion, the work of the tides, the storms. We respect the park. We keep the park clean, we police the park. We ask to be involved and included in the earliest phases of the decision-making process affecting the park. We want the vision back, and we want the promise kept. Thank you very much.   Jeff Ward: Good evening. Again, I'm here to speak about Fort Funston. My name is Jeff Ward. I'm one of the founding members of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, a member of the Fort Funston Dog Walkers, author of the FreeDog website, and the proud alpha-male of three Weimaraners, age nine, four, and five months. But I don't want to talk about dogs, I want to talk about waste. And the waste that I want to talk about is the waste that occurs when we don't follow the process that we set down in law, with the inevitable results. And has been previously mentioned, one of those is the Sunset Trail. An area of about ten to fifteen feet of the paved trail was endangered by intrusive erosion -- a V-shaped cleft in the cliff structure -- and because of that, an area of approximately the size of PacBell Park was marked for closure. There was a great public outcry, as there was over the fences that have recently gone up, but that outcry, which resulted in the re-opening of that area, came too late: we had already destroyed the paved trail, we had taken out two benches, and we'd removed all garbage cans. Now, to make that usable again, you're going to have to re-pave the trail, put back the park benches that were a favorite whale-watching spot, and put back the garbage cans, at a cost to the taxpayers. So, I would put forward that the same process is going on in regarding the closure of the bank swallows. The San Francisco Dog Owners Group, for example, was never informed of that, although we have frequent contact with the GGNRA. As Linda pointed out, the Fort Funston Dog Walkers got involved very late in the game, when it was basically a fait accompli. At the meeting that I spoke at before, what we were responding to was not the request of input, but a plan that was being delivered to us... Now we've ended up in courts, which is a place that is a horrible use of my time, it's a horrible use of my money, it's a horrible use of the money of the organizations, the sad thing is, it's a horrible use of taxpayers' money. It could have been avoided if we had worked more closely together, if the people who walk dogs were considered part of the park constituency, instead of, as they are currently defined, criminals whose activity is simply not enforced. Thank you.   Laura Cavaluzzo : You've heard a lot tonight about what Fort Funston means to people of San Francisco, and about our frustration at being left out of the decision-making process on what we very rightly consider to be our land. But I have a slightly different perspective.... I don't own a car. So, while I love Fort Funston and I go there every chance I get, I most often recreate with my dogs in the city parks closer to home. And I'm here to talk a bit about the ramifications that sudden closures of popular GGNRA land like Fort Funston have on parks in neighborhoods throughout the entire city. San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department has long been underfunded and understaffed. Recent ballot measures may solve those issues, however, there will always be a limited number of city park acres that recreationists of all kinds must share. Current estimates place the dog population of San Francisco at more than 100,000. Dog walking is among the most popular forms of recreation in the city, crossing all social strata, age groups, and differing levels of physical fitness and ability. Despite those facts, the facilities legally available to dog walkers are few and far between. Those legal dog areas that do exist are, in general, unmarked, unsafe, and poorly sited. This situation forces dog owners to seek out other areas to walk their dogs, leading, at times, to conflicts with other park users. Open spaces like Ocean Beach, Crissy Field and Fort Funston act as safety valves, allowing park users to spread out a bit, relieving the pressure on city parks and reducing conflict all over the city. When these areas are closed, with little warning, no request for public input and no cooperative sign in place to accomodate the displaced park users, city parks suffer greatly. And it's important to remember, too, that GGNRA land is not the only park in which delicate, threatened species live. Compressing park-goers into city parks increases the threat to the plants and animals there. As a daily user of San Francisco city parks and a frequent user of GGNRA lands, I ... prevail upon the GGNRA to open lines of communication, as they are bound by law to do. These park lands do not exist in a vacuum. ... they are urban parks, and our tax dollars pay for their upkeep. We have much to contribute to a meaningful dialog on how they should be used. Thank you.   Lindsay Kefauver: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lindsay Kefauver, and I'm a regular user of Fort Funston. I've been walking there for 22 years. I wanted to address the citizens' Advisory Commission, because part of your mandate is to act as a watchdog over the National Park Service's management of the first urban park of its kind, the GGNRA. Fort Funston is a special place ..... for many residents of San Francisco and San Mateo counties. It is the place you look forward to going at the end of the day, to unwind and re-energize. We show it off to our out of town friends, family, who always remember being taken there and ask to go back. It is a glorious space which attracts many outdoor activities, all of us have co-existed very nicely, until the National Park Service started closing off large coastal areas to all users, and drastically reducing the available open space. If you're not familiar with the layout of Fort Funston, or haven't been there recently, I've brought a map, which I'm sure you wish I didn't, because everyone is bleary-eyed at this time, but I just would pass it around and, basically, I just wanted to show you what's happened. In1995, this area (green) and this area [pointing to map]were closed off without any public hearing or notice, for the bank swallow habitat and for the planting of native plants. We accepted this closure, because most of us who come to Fort Funston feel that we're environmentalists, and want to help reserve the bank swallow habitat. The other section closed off in 1995 ........ this section was supposed to be closed temporarily, for native plants. The plants never happened. Five years later, the area remains closed. At the end of last year, again without any public notice, or hearing, the National Park Service abruptly closed the Sunset Trail, and subsequently removed the asphalt pavement from the trail. It's a flat, paved trail with gorgeous ocean views, favored by the elderly, the disabled, and parents with babies in strollers. Now this trail has been re-opened, but it's a sand trail, and it's not paved. And then early this year came the latest land grab. This doesn't look like a lot of land, but it's a particularly popular dune play area for kids and dogs. The new closures are for protection of the bank swallows, who nest in the middle of the cliff face, and, even though a spokesperson agreed that the birds' habitat would be protected with just closing off the cliff edge, the National Park Service decided that the fences had to come all the way to the road, since they couldn't sink the posts in the sand -- and yet, they succeeded in installing a good stretch of fence across the dunes without any problem. The new enclosure resembles a stockade, except everyone is fenced out, and now we're just waiting for the sentries to take up their posts. We are anxious to find a happy compromise: we ask that the new fencing be moved back, to approximately 30 feet from the cliff edge, making this stretch of cliff a permanent closure for the birds; we'd like the five-year old "temporary" Battery section re-opened, and we would want the Sunset Trail re-paved and the benches returned. Thank you very much for your time.   Florence Sarrett: Thank you for your long patience. I will be very brief. I think you've probably noticed some of us are wearing this shirt, that says on it: Fort Fun! Fort Fun, it used to be. Fort Fun, it is no longer. You only have to go to Fort Funston on any weekend to see the hundreds of visitors there, to recognize the huge need for recreation that exists in our community, so I'd like to emphasize that the GGNRA was created specifically as an urban recreation area -- as distinguished from a national park. I've grown old visiting Fort Funston, almost weekly, sometimes daily, since the 1960's, and I'm here on behalf of the seniors, and the disabled groups that go there, some with dogs and some without dogs, who enjoy the beauty, the vibrant activity, and the warm and caring community that has grown up there. I am one of them. Recently, the pavement of the Sunset Trail has been removed, and the benches removed, where one could stop and enjoy the view, or a rest if you needed to rest, and now, it's difficult for many of us to walk there, in the sand, and I would think it's probably impossible to maneuver a wheelchair. I urge you to insist that the GGNRA honor its mandate to offer our community maximum opportunities for recreation, and especially to give consideration to the needs of the elderly, and to observe the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thank you for your patience.   Amy Meyer, Advisory Commission Vice-Chair: Rich, I would like to give Brian one opportunity just to say whatever I've ....., I think because Florence, who I have the greatest respect for and have known for 25 years... would you please, Brian, just state once again, that there's no difference between this national park in an urban area, and any other national park. It is not something different, it is not an urban recreation area.... Rich Bartke, Advisory Commission Chair and meeting moderator: Frankly, it is my intent that the staff not speak at all, because the matter is in court, but I think the point Amy made is correct; that, although some national parks are called recreation areas, some are called seashores, and some are called something else, the management of those is all in the same manual, and they all are managed in the same manner. There's no difference in management, no matter what the name is.   Florence Sarrett: Could I ask one favor, before I sit down? I noticed that the chair appointed a member of the commission to act as liaison with the .......... Doyle Drive group, and I would love to see an appointment of a similar nature, to liaison with the Fort Funston Dog Walkers and the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, I think it would save a great deal of controversy.   Rich Bartke, Advisory Commission Chair and meeting moderator: Yeah, OK, that might be a good idea, it's something we could maybe work on.   [ David Adams.. -- comments not related to Fort Funston ]   Vicki Tiernan: Good evening. I'd like to thank you for your patience, as others have. My name is Vicki Tiernan. I am with the San Francisco Dog Owners Group and am also a member of the Sierra Club. I would also like to speak about the closures at Fort Funston. I'll keep this short, because others have already said a lot of what I had planned to say. To summarize, the important thing is that there were no public meetings held before the closure, and we were not included in the process of input. I'd also like to emphasize that this is a densely populated urban area. It's not the Grand Tetons. We are limited as to green space. We don't have the luxury of unlimited space here, and if, in the manual, there's no differentiation between management of an urban park and a national park, perhaps that should be looked into and changed, because this is an important consideration in this area. As Laura Cavaluzzo mentioned, there are an estimated 100,000 dogs in San Francisco, and I can pretty much assure you that every one of them loves Fort Funston! And so do the people who share their lives with them. It's a wonderful place and has been a cherished recreational area for a very long time. We're very upset about the fact that land keeps being taken away bit by bit -- it almost feels as if, eventually the whole Fort is going to be roped off and put under plastic furniture covers and no one is going to be able to enjoy it. We would like to see the bank swallows protected, certainly, but does it have to be done by taking away such a large amount of space? Do we have to have other habitat areas where no dogs or people are allowed, especially the area set aside for native plants in 1995 that has since been abandoned? I'd like to ask that all of this be reconsidered.   Pete Holloran: Pete Holloran , California Native Plant Society. We are very much in support of this administrative closure; it's no different from a city park closing a grassy lawn that has been damaged by added use. At the same time, we would really like to support comprehensive planning at Fort Funston. There is a need for more public input about all of the various resources at Funston. The demographic problem of having a hundred thousand dogs in San Francisco is a large social problem, and Fort Funston cannot bear the brunt of it. So I urge you to stand by the closure....   Tom Fulton: (?) Thank you. I'd like to commend the GGNRA and the members of the commission for their efforts to preserve bank swallows, native plants, and other priceless environmental features which have no other place to be. I would like to remind members ..... that dog owners represent a small, only a small, but strident, segment of the overall constituency that is served by the GGNRA, and I would urge you not to be held hostage...... I would just say that it is not the responsibility of the commission or the GGNRA to provide dog owners with dog runs at any location they desire. That we do have .... to endorse policies which promote the health, the safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns of all the hundreds of thousands of people, most of them non dog owners, who use the GGNRA on a daily basis. I would also like to submit that..... the present policy on dogs within ...... GGNRA and the national seashore is, at least in my view, incoherent and unenforced. Let me give you at least a couple of examples. Ocean Beach, which is supposed to be off-limits in certain sections to dogs who aren't at least on a leash ...... I challenge you to go down at any hour of the day, and you'll see that. Crissy Field is now complete chaos, from my point of view.... unleashed dogs in that area are absolutely inconsistent with the safety ..... I would challenge the commission to walk through East Beach, which is where the windsurfers used to be, barefoot ...... this beach is used by ...... small children, and I don't think you will walk through there unscathed. Further afield: Tennessee Valley. There's not supposed to be dogs in the main section down at the beach -- that is routinely violated. I have never seen anyone cited for that. And further afield, at Abbot's Lagoon and up towards the National Seashore's Sculptured Beach, routinely, you see this, that people allow dogs off-leash, and nothing's done. Just in summary, first of all, I commend you for your present firm stand, and I hope you prevail in court, and I would urge you to come up with a coherent and enforceable policy which protects the rights of everyone at the GGNRA, and gives primary consideration to the role of the GGRNA as a national park. Thank you.   Doug Kern (sp?): Good evening, my name is Doug Kern (sp?). I would like to first express my gratitude to those dogwalkers that are respectful of the open space, that are good stewards of open space, and I think that many, many dogwalkers are doing that. I'm a public person, I believe very much in the open, public process, so I'm also sympathetic to concerns by the dogwalking community that they haven't been heard... however, I'm also deeply concerned about destruction of resources. I believe in mixed-use of these lands, but I want to see the resources protected and respected by the entire community. So, prior to this date, I have not really involved myself in the dog walking controversy, believing that dog walkers would police their own. But, evidently, there is a, small, perhaps unpoliced group, at Fort Funston who may be ruining it for the rest of the dog walking community. I did investigate some of the laws: I have found the laws that say, for the National Park Service, "it is prohibited to fail to crate, cage, or restrain on a leash, or otherwise physically confine a pet at all times," so what this suggests to me is that because dogs are allowed off-leash, and to wander about these national park lands, that, there's been accomodation for the dog walking community, and I believe why the leadership has tried to accomodate the dog walking community. But, it seems to me that the accomodation is being abused. I think the Park Service may, in fact, be in violation of their own regulation. I strongly recommend that the dog walking community begin some sort of monitoring program for those members of your community who are giving it a difficult ...... for those people who would also like to see an area restored and protected. Thank you.   Charles Ryan: (?) I would like to say thank you to Brian O'Neill, for trying to protect the endangered species. We have to keep in mind that there is, quite certainly, no endangerment for domesticated animals. It is necessary to protect endangered species from domesticated canines, because the frank fact of the matter is, dogs scare the bejeezus out of....   Dan Murphy: My name is Dan Murphy, I represent the Golden Gate Audubon Society. Six thirty on Sunday morning, I took a walk at Fort Funston. I wanted to be there early, so I could experience what this park should be, and so that I could see what it is. I wanted to think about what I should say tonight. What I saw was disturbing. Where ice plant still dominates the dunes, there are great scars from intense off-trail use. I watched the dogs scrape great streamers of sand from the gusting wind. Once past the parking lot... at Battery Davis.... I was still walking ... towards the dunes. I took a path down to the dunes through the gulch at the north end of the restoration site some seem intent on blocking. On the beach, I felt the force of the wind and the sea, which have all but washed away traces of last year's bank swallow colony from the cliff face. I raced waves through the ... fortifications, which eroded through the sand bluffs onto the beach. One of them, by Panama Point, marks the place where the colony I watched for many hours back in 1980. The sand bluffs are scarred and worn. I find it hard to imagine that they did not erode three feet during the past winter. The bank swallows, which have historically nested along the entire bluff, from the gulch northward, will relocate their colony again this year. Back on Fort Funston terrace, I walked along the restored dunes and enjoyed a moment in this park as it should be enjoyed, where the dune community, which once dominated western San Francisco, at least is partly intact. I came finally to the dunes we've discussed here tonight, and, quite frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been closed earlier. They show marks of more erosion, and more abuse, than anywhere at Fort Funston. The steep slopes are bare of vegetation from human use .... In those places, the dunes which rest atop them are not just eroding from the sea inland, but from the land toward the sea, as well. Those dunes are a landscape being consumed, without the least regard for what the future generations will find there. There is nothing which can or should be done to curtail natural erosion at the site; there is much which should be done to reduce human impacts, which are not only threatening the bank swallow colony, but devastating this unit of our national recreation area. The Golden Gate Audubon Society supports your efforts to preserve Fort Funston for bank swallows, for habitat restoration, and for future generations.   Rich Bartke, Advisory Commission Chair and meeting moderator: Thank you. I want to thank everybody that took part this evening. It is late, and we're sorry about that, but I think you all treated each other with respect, and were quite concise and articulate in what you wanted to say to us. Unfortunately, our staff cannot respond because of the lawsuit that is going on, and there's really not a lot that the commission might do, because of the lawsuit. We anticipate, of course, that it will be resolved, sooner or later, but in the meantime, I appreciate the recommendation that this commission have some liaison with not only the Fort Funston Dog Walkers, but with other members of the dog walking community. We have had that in the past, but it has not been active in the last year or so, and it's a good suggestion...

12:15 a.m., Wed. March 22 -  Meeting adjourned.

 

---

This sign and maps were posted during March 2000 on a new board next to the then still-open gate to the "seasonal" closure area.

Fort Funston - Bank Swallows         February 2000

New Protection Measures for Bank Swallows at Fort Funston

WHAT:  As part of the resource protection mission of the National Park Service, a small portion of north Fort Funston will soon be closed to the public. This action will protect habitat for nesting bank swallows; however it will still allow beach access for hiking and dog walking. The area will be fenced with a four-foot mesh fence that will keep out pets and visitors, but will maintain an open view of the cliff area and the coast.

WHERE:  Lying north of the beach trail above Battery Davis and west of the Coastal Trail, the six-acre area is bounded on the north by the currently protected bank swallow habitat. Much of this land will remain open to visitors for seasonal use from approximately August to mid-March when the swallows return to nest. This will include the majority of the two hills currently used for a variety of recreational activities. Access to the beach trail north of Battery Davis and the vista point area just north of the beach trail will remain open year-round.

WHY:  The winter storms of 1997 and 1998 eroded the protected cliff area where the bank swallow colony had traditionally nested. Park biologists tracked their movement to the unprotected cliff areas immediately to the south and, because the swallows are a threatened species in the State of California, determined the new nesting sites also need protection. This colony of bank swallow is one of only two remaining coastal cliff dwelling colonies in all of California. Therefore, it is important to protect the colony in its new nesting area.

WHEN:  The park will begin fencing the area in mid-February 2000. However, the seasonal portion of the closure area will remain open by way of a series of gates until the first swallows return in the March/April timeframe. The seasonal area will then be closed until the swallows leave in August. Outreach activities conducted by park staff, including handouts, press releases and signs, will notify visitors when the closure will go into effect.

If you have questions regarding these protection measures, please call the office of Public Affairs and Special Events at (415) 561-4730.

---

Fort Fenced-In

Everything at Fort Funston -- in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA)-- in both photographs below (except the distant beach) has just been fenced off and is being closed to public access and recreation by the National Park Service. The areas to the left of the brand-new fence, itself a shameful violation of a pristine sand dune, are permanently closed. The areas to the right are seasonally closed five months a year.

Where is the science justifying these closures? Why was there an end-run around the legally required notice, publication and opportunity for comment at hearings? Why is the GGNRA closing off one area after another, for purposes that are not clearly needed, effective, nor consistent with the agency's mission of providing recreational opportunities?

---

Land Grab?

photo by Elaine Best

---

Editorial: The Non-Empirical's New Close

There are meetings, protests , the lawsuit. They're all smart moves which I support. But what seems missing to me is any way that works for people to be involved in the decision-making process. Most people don't have the time, energy or knowledge to find out when and where decisions are made and feel excluded from even trying.

Several people have put forward some interesting alternative explanations of how one thing affects another at Fort Funston. Things aren't always obvious, and a lot of assumptions are left unchallenged. Solutions to problems, which sometimes are not even clearly problems ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"), often don't seem to have a sound scientific basis. Where is the empirical evidence? So many untested theories seem to be flying about that I'm afraid the bank swallows might crash into them! For instance, it's been taken as truth that dogs somehow "bother" bank swallows; that the birds will be too hassled somehow to reproduce or feed their young. Could it be, a dog owner suggested yesterday, that in fact there's something about off-leash dogs (perhaps that the dogs scare away not the bank swallows but their predators such as cow-birds) which is the reason the swallows choose, out of many coastal bluffs, Fort Funston? I have no idea, but it's an interesting thought that makes as much sense to me as the idea that a few dogs have the power to bring down a colony of birds flying 40 feet overhead. This website is a place for looking at questions, assumptions, experimental evidence and solutions -- with an open mind.

Below is an idea sheet to begin looking at the issues raised in the two signs posted on the fence this week. I've broken the sentences into segments, because each segment is a topic worthy of discussion, problem-solving, testing and decision-making. What do you think? Click over to the two-page printer version and grab a pencil. Are there things you'd like to be convinced of before assuming that the policy makes sense, or will even work?

I don't want this site to be a launching pad for verbal attacks on the Park Service administration or employees. I don't think theirs is an easy job, and they have to act within constraints from above as well as deal with multiple constituencies. If anything, I am trying to help them in the task of making sense out of the options at Fort Funston. So please e-mail ideas, but try to refrain from name-calling and sarcasm. The anger is justifiable, but it will only antagonize both sides further. I just want to see the evidence, the science backing up some of the decisions being made, and open up a discussion about how to balance the various activities and groups at Fort Funston. Thanks for visiting the site today. Have a great weekend, and may the Fort be with you!

              - Michael B. Goldstein, Editor   

---

---

Fort Funston Idea Sheet

What are your thoughts, questions, solutions for the issues raised in the signs posted on the fence?

click here -- jump to two-page version for printing

Why the Fences?
Fort Funston is home to
a threatened bird species, the Bank Swallow,
which burrow nests into the sea cliffs.
In the fenced-off area we are trying to improve the birds' habitat
by replacing introduced species like iceplant with native plants.
The U.S. Army planted iceplant in the 1930's to control erosion around construction sites.
The invasive iceplant overtook,
reducing food and cover for wildlife such as quail, swallows, rabbits and insects.
An average of 20,000 native plants per year are propagated at the Fort Funston native plant nursery
and are planted by school groups
and hundreds of volunteers.
We also rely on park users to stay out of closed areas
and to keep pets and horses under control.
By doing so you preserve the work of volunteers
and help the bank swallows grow in health.
For more information please feel free to talk to any ranger
or call 415 239-2366. Thank you.
Seasonal Use Area. Until further notice,
this area shall be open from approximately mid-August to mid-March.
It will be closed when the bank swallows return here to raise their young in the springtime.
Bank swallows (Riparia riparia) are a state-threatened species in the state of California
and are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1960.
National Park Service rangers will re-open the gates to allow access into this area
when the bank swallows have left Fort Funston for their southern migration in late July or August.

---

Some Thoughts on Fort Funston                   by Linda Shore

---

"We knew this was not going to be a popular thing"

A plausible argument can be made that the National Park Service (NPS) knew in advance that closing certain areas at Fort Funston would be "highly controversial," U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in concluding remarks at Tuesday, March 14's court hearing at the Federal Building. The case's smoking gun, twice repeated verbatim by the judge, is a quote from Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA)'s spokesman Roger Scott that, "We knew this was not going to be a popular thing."1.  That, the judge remarked, was close to saying that the closure would be "highly controversial."  And in such non-emergency, highly controversial closures, federal law governing the National Park Service requires publication in the Federal Register and an opportunity for comment at a public hearing.  A major complaint of the case's plaintiffs, Fort Funston Dog Walkers, is that the Park Service's closure is illegal because NPS neither announced the change nor solicited opinions from Fort Funston users.

The closure has sparked a series of meetings, protest demonstrations, letters to representatives, and a lawsuit. The Dog Walkers' complaint, heard in court on March 14th, includes a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the agency from closing two gates through which access to the area in question is currently still allowed. The NPS had planned to close the gates any day now, as soon as the migrating Bank Swallows are spotted in the vicinity.

"Those gates should remain open to people and to dogs", stated the judge in referring to the "seasonal closure" area."2. He went on to declare, "However, when the Bank Swallows come back, if the Park Service makes an emergency declaration, it may close the gates without any kind of hearing."

So far, without an emergency having been declared, the judge held that "the public rule-making process should have been adhered to." The judge said that, "I wonder whether an emergency can be created," given all the previous years that the Bank Swallows have been back, and short of such a declaration he held that the plaintiffs had a legitimate issue because the closure, being highly controversial, requires notice and comment.

In the meantime, "The court is not going to require that the fence be taken down, and in fact the Park Service may continue building the internal fence" 3.  Then, after stipulating that the seasonal gates should remain open, the judge declared that, "The permanent area will remain closed because there could be injury to native grasses" caused by dogs.

The judge was less sure of the extent of "significant alteration in public use patterns", which is a second requirement for going through the legal rulemaking process (the first requirement being the "highly controversial" nature of a closure.) While granting the part of the restraining order to keep the gates open for the time being, the judge did not consider the Sunset Trail issues to be as important. In recent days the NPS has cleared away the piles of asphalt there, permitting some pedestrian access. Equal access to the Sunset Trail, a requirement of federal law, is still in question because of its rough, unpaved surfaces unsuitable to most wheelchair users. However, the judge was disinclined to review this equal access issue raised in the complaint. Although the court accepted a motion by The Audubon Society to join the case on the government's side, a comparable effort to find equal-access groups to join on the Dog Walkers' side appeared unlikely because the judge stipulated that this could only be requested through the following day.

Deadlines set by the judge include March 30th for the discovery phase, April 3rd for supplemental briefs, and April 10th for reply briefs. All in all, there will be hundreds of pages of briefs, documents and exhibits -- and once these are filed with the court and become a matter of public record, as many as possible will be available right here at the Fort Funston Forum website for public review.   

The restrictions imposed by Tuesday's Temporary Restraining Order (not allowing gates to the "seasonal closure" area to be shut short of a declaration of an emergency regarding the Bank Swallow habitat protection) will be in place until the next step, which is an injunction hearing on Friday, April 14, at 8:00 a.m., U.S. District Courtroom 9, 19th floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.

 by Michael B. Goldstein      please check back here for corrections or clarifications!

---

click here to see full text of complaint!     

---

click here for Fort Funston Dog Walkers Press Release March 2, 2000 with more info.

---

To see 155 photos posted on Fort Funston fenceposts on March 4th, protesting area closure:

click here 

---

  

---

advertisement:   need a website?   e-mail me: editor@fortfunstonforum.com

---

To First Section of Fort Funston Forum