Rich Bartke, Chair:
Before we proceed to Item One, I might indicate that I've been informed that some people are here with the impression that this is a meeting about dogs; it is not. That has never been on this agenda, so if you have been informed that this is a meeting about dogs, you've been misinformed. On the other hand, at the end of the agenda, there is a place for "Non Agenda Items" - I believe, on my copy, at least - and I've been informed about two or three different items that want to come up under "Non Agenda Items". If it's not too late in the evening then, we will hear "Non Agenda Items" at the end of the evening. But, in the meantime, we have a pretty heavy agenda to complete.

1. [Approval of Minutes of Oct. 20 & Oct. 23 Meetings.]

2. [Park Vision - Park Agenda and Community Programs: Agenda Item Postponed.]

3. [Fort Mason Pier 2 Seismic Retrofit Environmental Assessment.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
I'm going to make a statement now that applies to other scoping and public hearings that we have on the agenda this evening. The commission which is seated in front of you are citizen volunteers appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to hear the public comments and to make its advice to the Secretary of the Interior through his designee - her designee, which is Brian O'Neill. So, the two people sitting on my immediate left are employees of the Park Service or of the Trust. The rest of us are not park employees, we don't run the park, we are simply here, as you are, to give our advice to the National Park Service.

4. [Water Transit Authority - Ferry Planning Efforts.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Before we move on to the next item on the agenda, I'm looking ahead to the end of the agenda, and I'm told that there are almost fifty people who have signed up to speak on an item which is not on the agenda. We did not know that you were coming, or that you wanted to speak on an item which wasn't on the agenda. And, if you have something to relate to us, that's apropos to what this commission does, we want to hear about it, but there's no way we can hear fifty people at the end of the agenda. So, what I'm suggesting is that, as we go through the next few items on the agenda, you may wish to get together and designate a few spokespersons who could tell us what your concerns are, so that we can hear three, four, five people who can each, within three minutes, tell us what your concerns are, because, otherwise -

[Various Audience Members:
"No!"
"We won't do it!"
"You were asked to put this on your agenda every month - you refused to put it on your agenda!" ]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
The next item on the agenda is public comment on the Fort Baker RFP Respondents…

5. [Public Comment on Fort Baker RFP Respondents.]

6. [Reports: Superintendent's Report, Presidio Trust Director's Report.]

Superintendent's Report:
Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
I'm going to be very short because of the lateness of the hour and the importance of getting on with the other items. There's a Superintendent's Report in the back. I just wanted to tell you about a couple things. You know, we've all been concerned about the state of the park's operating budget. In the National Park Service Fiscal Year 2002 Budget, which was signed by President Bush just about two weeks ago, did include a couple of key items that do impact, in addition to the ones that we talked about earlier in the line item instruction [?] program, I've also included the money to complete the acquisition of the Mori Point project in San Mateo County. It included, importantly, enhanced money for habitat restoration for the Mission Blue Butterfly, which is a very important sort of commitment that we have in our park, since we have three, I think, or four, remaining sites for the Mission Blue Butterfly. And there will be more on that issue at a later date.

The last one is that we've all pushed, the Advisory Commission played a very critical role, in terms of trying to better understand what the state of the park's operating budget was, and what its deficiencies were, and I have to, in my seat, you know, I just want to thank the commission for the work that it did. The Park Service ended up, on a nationwide basis, with about $28 million of operating increases - which is fairly small, considering there's 387 units in the National Park System, and all parks are in critical need of operating funds to maintain the infrastructure and the public programs. Now, out of that $28 million, Golden Gate got a significant piece of that. It's only a small amount of what is really needed, but we did get an operating increase of $750,000, and I've talked to a number of you who expressed some dissatisfaction with that amount. I just want to say, when you consider $28 million spread over 387 parks, all of which have critical needs, it really speaks to the yeoman effort that was made to at least give us that first important increment of need in our long term objective of trying to get our park budget up to a operating level that, at least, is what it was back in 1980.

The last thing I want to say: this is just a commentary on the events post-September 11th. All of us have had to make a lot of sacrifices, personally and otherwise, and this park is taking a tremendous sort of impact, just in trying to provide a support around the country to deal with various security issues. Some of our staff have been called back to assist in providing security back in the nation's capital, we've had to send many of our protection rangers to provide security for dams; we just got a call right before the meeting - we're having to send three more out, to protect Shasta Dam, to the north, and Hoover Dam. And we're also having to send some additional people to Hawaii, to the Arizona Memorial. So, it's going to be a continuing impact, our problem is, we're really short of field staff as it is, and so we're having to spare every possible individual we can and still keep a very, very basic operation in the park going. So, I just want to say, all of us are having to change how we think and how we act, and how we can respond to a national need. It is having a lot of ongoing operational impact on us, but we're just trying to do our part and continue with that. So, if you see that there's a shortfall with respect to our ability to respond promptly to all requests, or to be able to have field staff deal with all of the ongoing problems, just remember that we have to be part of a solution to a bigger need. So, I wanted to provide that little perspective.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you very much. I might indicate for the public's knowledge that we've … something like a year ago that this park was one of the most under-funded of all of the units of the National Park Service. One of the only ones that's actually lost ground, even though we have more land than we had in 1980, we have, actually, fewer employees than we had in 1980 - something like 34 fewer? - than we had 21 years ago, and that's not typical of parks. All parks have needs, but this one seems to have had more, so we impaneled a budget study committee under Michael Alexander, and made quite a push, and we feel that we were somewhat helpful in getting that $750,000. But we asked for $2 million, and we didn't get that. So, we're not done, Michael.

[Michael Alexander, Commissioner, comments including, with respect to the $750,000 budget increase: "we was robbed!"]

7. [Committee Reports.]

8. [Non Agenda Issues.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Now, down to "Non Agenda Issues," and I have a list of the speakers, which is approximately 80.

[Applause.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
We have to come up with a plan. Now, what that plan is, I think we need to work out. Our Commission is set up to hear from the public about issues that the Commission can deal with. Some of these people who've signed up have been to our committee [correction: commission] meetings on a regular basis, and much of what they have to tell us, were not things that the Commission could deal with - they wanted to talk to the Park Service, not to this Commission. And I'm wondering if that isn't happening again - that some of you, maybe all of you, really want to talk to the Park Service, and not to this Commission, having already taken its action, and having not been asked, nor do we intend to change our action. There are a couple of - a lot of these just say, "Off Leash," or, "Fort Funston," but there are a couple that don't. I'll call on them first, to find out what their topic is. But, as I suggested at the - a couple hours ago - have you been able to designate speakers who could reduce this, because, obviously, if everybody spoke for three minutes, we'd be here for more than three hours….

[Audience objects to this plan.]

Audience Members:
We've been here almost three hours now.
We've all had a long day.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Ma'am, you're not listening.

Audience Member:
Nor are you.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
We have early morning meetings tomorrow.

Audience Members:
So do we.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
…so we need to find a process to find out what this issue is -

Audience Member:
This is our only forum to go on record, sir.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
I heard a suggestion from over here, that maybe what needs to be done is that you need to call me -- I'll give you my phone number -

Audience: Chorus of "NO"s.

Audience Member:
We have to go on the record, sir.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
…on the agenda, or, we'll put you on the agenda so that we can hear something that the commission can deal with. If it's not that, then, we're not getting anywhere.

Audience Member:
Excuse me, sir. You're supposed to be here, representing us, not the Park Service, and you're not doing that.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
… on something else. Michael Goldstein, just, it looks like it says, "Policy," and I'm not sure what that means.

Michael Goldstein:
I note that the "National Park Service Comments on Presidio Trust Implementation Plan" on the GGNRA's website has a letter to James Meadows, the Executive Director of the Presidio Trust.

This three page, official letter starts out: "On behalf of the Golden Gate National Parks..." and concludes, "Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent"

I would like to ask the members of this commission who are under the impression that the true name of this federal agency is anything other than the "Golden Gate National Recreation Area" - I'll repeat that: I would like to ask the members of this commission who are under the impression that the true name of this federal agency is anything other than the "Golden Gate National Recreation Area" to please raise their hands now.

Interrupted by
Rich Bartke, Chair:
Sir, haven't you brought this topic up before - and haven't you gotten an answer before?

Michael Goldstein:
Excuse me, this is my three minutes, and I'm one minute into it.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
[More remarks, audience noise]

Michael Goldstein:
You're using my time, and I'll stop my stopwatch right now.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
You're taking other people's time -

Michael Goldstein:
I have two minutes to speak, and would you please let me speak.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you. What's your point?

Michael Goldstein:
I was in the middle of making it. For the record, I note: no hands raised.

The Superintendent should quit the name game and accept that he manages a National Recreation Area. The letter in question misrepresents Mr. O'Neill by pretending that he is General Superintendent of something that simply does not exist: "Golden Gate National Parks". The Superintendent represented himself in the same dissembling manner in a radio report on KCBS during the Crissy Field Celebration a few months ago, as well.

Congress and the people of the Bay Area had a vision of a recreation area, and that's why it's called just that. If the Superintendent wants the name changed, he can go to Congress, but in the meantime, he's got to stop using the fictitious name, "Golden Gate National Parks."

At this Commission's August 28th meeting this year, the Chair introduced this body as being the Advisory Commission for the area of the Golden Gate National Parks. I questioned this name usage during my comments under "Non-Agenda Items" that evening. Mr. Bartke agreed that he had misspoke, saying, "Consider it corrected."

I see in the Superintendent's response to San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne's letter of August 2nd, 2001 that he claims that:

"Although Golden Gate National Recreation Area is our legislative name, the name Golden Gate National Parks was developed to include the diverse and geographically far-reaching park sites, which, while under the management of GGNRA, are separate units of the National Park System. Fort Point National Historic Site, established in 1970, and Muir Woods National Historic Site, established in 1908, now fall under the management of GGNRA. For simplicity's sake, they are collectively known as the Golden Gate National Parks."

I visited the GGNRA's official website today, and at the very top of the main homepage, as clear as day, is the statement that:

"Golden Gate National Recreation Area Includes:" and it includes four areas, including Fort Point and Muir Woods. In any case, I find this argument a totally unsatisfactory rationale for removing the words "Recreation Area" from this federal agency's name. Again, the Superintendent and others are free to petition the Congress for a name change, but unless and until such a change is officially authorized, I submit that the use of the name, "Golden Gate National Parks" in official communications is an intentional and fraudulent attempt to dishonor the very purpose for which the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established in the 1970s.

And I'm concluding -- The name, "Golden Gate National Parks" is also quite confusing, particularly for thousands of tourists, who cannot be expected to understand that this is not the same as the world-famous "Golden Gate Park", founded a full 100 years earlier, in the 1870s. If the false name "Golden Gate National Parks" continues to be used by GGNRA officials, I intend to request the incoming San Francisco City Attorney to challenge its use as an infringement on The City's long-standing use of the name "Golden Gate Park".
Thank you.

[Speaker on Presidio.]

[Much debate back and forth between audience and the Chair about what order to hear the speakers in, and another request by the Chair that audience members select a few speakers.]

[Also, at this point, ten minutes into Non Agenda Items, at 10:15 p.m., Commissioners Amy Meyer and Trent Orr simply got up and left, with no explanations. After a while, Commissioners Lennie Roberts and Anna-Marie Booth also left.]

Martin Fieldhouse:
I am speaking to you this evening because I wish to go on record with my protest against the recent harassment and ticketing of dog owners at Fort Funston, Crissy Field and Baker Beach. These areas have historically been off leash recreation areas -

Interrupted by
Rich Bartke, Chair:
What you're talking out is something that you need to address to the Park Service.

Martin Fieldhouse:
Suddenly, because of the hysteria generated [interrupted again by Chair] I did not interrupt any of the Commission members tonight. I sat here for over three hours.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
I understand that…. You're talking about a subject matter that this Commission has -

Martin Fieldhouse:
I'm sorry, but I've never been here before… I was told what the procedure was, I've followed the procedure, I sat here, I came first, I signed up first, all I ask is my three minutes, will you please let me finish?

Rich Bartke, Chair:
A lot of people want to speak for three minutes.

Martin Fieldhouse:
Sir, can you please discuss it after my three minutes? Give me two and a quarter! Please, come on, it's been a long evening; I know we all want to go home. OK. Suddenly, because of the hysteria generated by a couple of high profile dog attacks, thousands of previously law-abiding citizens may be prosecuted as criminals.

Jailing everyone so they can't commit crime is not an acceptable means of crime prevention. Leashing all dogs similarly misses the mark. The real problem dogs are chained to posts in backyards, or confined to small apartments without adequate exercise, not playing on the beach with their friends.

My dog Robin and I have spent almost 300 hours at Fort Funston during this past year. In that time neither of us has destroyed a natural resource, harmed a native species, or terrorized a child. I have not witnessed a single incident of destructiveness to the environment nor aggression toward humans. What I have seen time and again is the sheer joy of dogs running and playing together and the amazing openness, interaction and friendship between the people who bring their dogs there. In this age of increasing isolation and distrust of fellow human beings, it is an extraordinary pleasure to experience such warmth and social interaction.

I contend that, if you were to succeed in forcing all these dogs onto leashes, people would not be able to walk and talk, nor even approach each other, for fear of tangled leashes and the ensuing potential for injury.

When I recently called the GGNRA, one of your representatives, Alex Naar, justified the harassment by saying that dogs are not allowed off leash in national parks. I later discovered this to be inaccurate. Apparently, dogs are allowed off leash in 45 National Parks as long as their owners are hunting. This makes no sense to me. If I want to let my dog Robin run and play while I enjoy the scenery and the company of people, I'm a criminal. However, if I carry a gun and kill some wildlife, I'm OK. [audience laughter] I ask you to consider if this is really sound and sensible public policy.

Off leash dogwalkers, by my own estimate, make up 90% of the park users at Fort Funston. The beach area is not easily accessible and the weather and tides make it inhospitable to sunbathing or picnicking families. Unless your ultimate goal is to protect this area so well that no one gets to use it, I ask you to reconsider your attitude toward us, the citizens who truly use, clean, treasure and protect these natural resources.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
First of all, Brian O'Neill will respond to the one speaker about the name of the park. I will respond to this speaker. Ms. Meyer told us in advance that she has a Trust meeting at 7:30 tomorrow morning - [audience ridicule] … Brian?

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
[I] wasn't going to discuss the name, because I think the letter to Louise Renne adequately expressed it … I'm also the Superintendent, for better or worse, of Muir Woods National Monument and Fort Point National Historic Site. So, I think the accurate representation, rather than spelling all those out, is to use the term generically: "The National Parks at the Golden Gate", or "Golden Gate National Parks".

But, I want to say, I know there's a lot of pent up feelings, anger, whatever it might be. I just want to say to the group here, you - we have talked, and many of you know the dilemma that we're in. [audience reacts negatively] Wait, wait, wait a minute! … We've spent a lot of time on the phone with many of you, and we're trying to put - the only way in which we can change the current situation is to be able to get into this process of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That's the only time where I have, as the Superintendent, of these three units of the National Park System, have the ability to get into a formal dialog with the community to look at whether there is merit with respect to changing a national regulation that is mandated on all of us. I do not have the authority to unilaterally change a national regulation. I have never been given that authority; most of you who understand this issue appreciate that. I have tried to take the initiative, on behalf of this community of concerned people, all users, is to be able to get the authority for the first time in the history of the National Park Service, to be able to get the authority for these parks, these three units of the National Park System, to be able to start the process that could lead, ultimately, to the ability to promulgate a regulation in this park -- three parks - that would identify where, and under what conditions, off leash dog walking could occur. I do not have that authority now. All of the negative energy that you're spending now cannot solve the dilemma that I have, or that the park has, because I do not have the authority to do exactly what you suggest. So, we're seeking the authority to be able to do that, so we can get in to the very kind of dialog you seek. [Audience reactions, Superintendent calls on audience member raising her hand.]

Audience Member [Carol Arnold]:
I'm sorry to interrupt. These people really, really want to speak. We've heard you; we've heard you many times. We know what you're going to say, we can predict what you're going to say; we really, with all due respect, don't need to hear you again. We do need to have you hear us. If we could just get started with our three minute speeches and go as far as we can go with it, I think that would be the best way to diffuse the situation. And I think we should start right now.

[Audience applause.]

Audience Member [Lisa Vittori]:

I think it's important for us to listen to Brian, because it's important for this to be on the public record. He's been saying this to us privately, we know that it's not true, but it's important …

Audience Member [Carol Arnold]:
But it's getting in our way of others who need to speak and there's too much emotion pent up here and it's got to get out.

[Unidentified speaker]:
Mr. O'Neill, you started the ANPR process, but why are you rigorously enforcing -

Audience Member [Carol Arnold]:
I would say our time cut off, it's twenty after ten, our time cut off - let's go to midnight.

[Unidentified speaker]:
Let's do two minutes each.

[Lots of audience comments.]
…

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Well, you said you've heard him, you know what he's going to say. But, we've also heard you, we know what you're going to say.

[Audience reacts negatively.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
… I want to hear something new that we haven't heard before. This lady right here: Have you got something new that we haven't heard before?

Jane Fedor:
My name is Jane Fedor…. I'm a resident and .. dog walker in our public spaces. What you don't know, what you don't seem to know, is that recently there've been a lot of changes in the activities of the officers in the traditionally off leash recreation area. New signs have been put up, new activities by officers to coerce "voluntary" leashing of dogs in traditionally off leash areas. And that's a new development that you need to know about. And I encourage everyone else to use the rest of my three minutes.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Ma'am, the thing is, though, is first of all, we've been told that by the staff. Secondly, in our last commission meeting, some of you who are here, told us that.

[Audience response, including remarks about "tickets".]

Unidentified Speaker:
In the handout at the back of the room [Superintendent's Report] -- look at the number of individuals that were spoken to this period about off leash recreation. Is that the report you get at every meeting, is that … as usual?

Rich Bartke, Chair:
How is that different? How is that going to help solve the problem?

Linda McKay:
I think there is a role for the Advisory Commission to play, and I think you're not being fair about this. Statements were made at the January meeting about what went on with the 1979 Pet Policy, and in subsequent research, we found that those were not true. We were told by the Advisory Commission that you asked the Park Service to do something illegal, and they never accepted it. The fact is, the Park Service drafted that policy, you held public meetings at their request, they accepted that Pet Policy in full, the Superintendent in 1978 accepted it in full - it wasn't something you just threw over the wall and said here's something we think would be a good idea; It was a joint effort. So, to characterize it as you did at the January meeting is not correct.

The difference that's going on: We knew that some people were getting warnings, and we knew some people were going to get tickets -- because we had the sense that 'you can't not enforce the law' - we understood that. We didn't like it, but we understood that was your position. We didn't expect concerted efforts, where rangers come out for two and three hours at a time, and post themselves at various places at Fort Funston so they can catch everybody. It's very aggressive enforcement, and that's what's changed. And actually, I have an idea how you can save some manpower … [Audience reaction and laughter.]

And I also want to say that I have a resolution, which I will not read to you, from Mark Leno, and it's also sponsored by six other supervisors, because those are the only ones that we could get to, and it's a resolution by The City, it will be before the board on Monday, asking you to please stop this aggressive enforcement while the ANPR is in place. We are really trying to deal in good faith, and this makes it very difficult. Thank you.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
We have now received that message. And now, is this a new and different message?

Keith McAllister:
Yes sir, it is. I came to speak to the Commission, not to Mr. O'Neill. My name is Keith McAllister, I live here in The City. Fifteen months ago, in August, a year ago in November, and again in January of this year, the Commission members repeated over and over that you had no choice. You claimed your 1979 Pet Policy was illegal, never valid, it was the law, it was out of your hands. But now, we enter into the ANPR, in an attempt to validate and confirm your 1979 policy. So, we expect the Commission to vigorously support a special regulation to allow off leash recreation to continue in the GGNRA. Your efforts can significantly influence the outcome of rulemaking. Your policy was correct in 1979, and that policy is still correct.

Stepped-up enforcement at Fort Funston is designed to prevent a rule change. So, I'm asking you, please do the right thing as representatives of the citizens who are using the GGNRA. Exert your influence, take the lead in the effort to retain our historical rights to recreation on less than one percent of our GGNRA land.

Karin Hu:
I'm Karin Hu. I'm a smart person, but you know, I'm racking my brains to figure out why we're being forced to leash our dogs. The mountain bikers were allowed to ride during their ANPR, the hang gliders were allowed to fly during their ANPR -- why are we being harassed?

I believe one reason dog owners are being harassed is because we're women. Walking with an off leash dog is one of the few recreations where the majority are women, with a leadership of women. There's a whole lot of middle aged women, like myself, trying to ward off heart disease, osteoporosis, enjoy the sea breezes seeing our friends, out there because it's a good idea and because our dogs think it's a great idea. But now, we're outlaws. We're getting threatened, we're getting tickets - I can't believe Superintendent O'Neill is screwing a bunch of middle aged women.

We're not taking this lying down, and Commissioners, I hope you advise the GGNRA to get the rangers off our backs. The NPS brochures are not 'educating'. People are not 'voluntarily complying'; people are being intimidated. Rangers are telling us to leash our dogs because 'it's the law.' That's not education, it's a threat. It's a threat of getting a ticket, it's a threat of getting arrested, it's a threat of having our dogs impounded.

In the past, we've spoken to you, using the law. We've appealed to you with science; with letters, thousands of them; with petitions. The only time that you responded to us is when over a thousand of us showed up one stormy January evening and pounded on the window.

I hope that we can continue to work within the system, with polite discourse, but we're very angry about this harassment. We're angry about not being heard, and we're not going to roll over and play dead. For the record, note: my dogs are neutered, but I'm not..…

Superintendent Brian O'Neill:
In the bicycle issue, they gave the discretion to the Superintendent, to be able to promulgate a regulation, they did not …

[Audience reaction]

… and that's what we're seeking. That authority is given by the Director of the National Park Service, if indeed that authority is within his or her purview; sometimes Congress does not give that purview, but when it is, it's a decision of the director of the Park Service.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
May I remind the speakers that what we're looking for is new and different, that we haven't heard before.

Vicki Tiernan:
My name is Vicki Tiernan, I want to address comments exactly like that, Mr. Bartke, but first, I want to say, we've heard, in terms of putting the leash signs up, we've heard a number of times that 'Washington told us to do it'. No one has given us a name of who in Washington 'told us to do it', or why this has to be enforced right now. As far as the Pet Policy being accepted by the Park Service, I want to lend support to what Linda McKay said, and also say that we have letters in our possession from Brian O'Neill and Stanley Albright [National Park Service Western Regional Director in 1992] and others, to Congress people stating outright that they've accepted the Pet Policy as the policy in the GGNRA.

I'd like to address, Mr. Bartke, since I'm one of the people who has spoken at a number of these meetings, that: I had a death in my family three weeks ago - I lost my mom. In the course of the same week, I was in a horrific car accident, and I'm lucky I was able to walk away from it. The last place I want to be right now is here.

I'm here because this issue is of such huge significance to me. When I was coming back on the plane from the East Coast, from dealing with all of this, I should have been feeling relief to get back to my dog, the parks, my respite - and I responsibly use the parks, we all do - and instead, I was feeling absolute dread: of getting back into this, and dealing with this situation. If you want to be rid of us at these meetings, then urge the Park Service, urge Brian O'Neill, to treat us fairly, reasonably and respectfully. I will, for one, gladly go away. Thank you.

Carol Arnold:
Good evening, Commissioners, Superintendent O'Neill. My name is Carol Arnold, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight about the recent actions of the GGNRA requiring dogs to be leashed in traditionally off leash areas. I want to follow up on something that Vicki mentioned, or, she's getting at, and that is the feeling of all of this, the emotion behind this, which is enormous, as you can feel in this room. I just want to talk about myself personally, and I think it's what you need to hear; you need to look at us as individuals and hear about this emotion and what it means to us.

Actually, tonight, I feel so defeated that it's almost impossible for me to speak. Then I think: that's exactly what they want me to feel. They want me to go away and stop talking about how much I love to walk my dog at Fort Funston and Crissy; they want me to give up on this major quality of life issue that affects tens of thousands of people. To quote a favorite poet, Dylan Thomas, they want me merely, just to 'go gentle into the good night'. Thomas of course was writing about death, but there are many kinds of death, and I am before you tonight to speak about one of these. The act of a federal bureaucracy preventing thousands of people from pursuing their most favorite thing in life, a simple thing, walking their dog outside, off lead, on the trail, freely, playfully, joyfully - the great loss at not being able to do this anymore can only be defined to those of us who love our dogs as a death.

But, in Thomas's poem, there is a glimmer of hope. Thomas actually tells us not to go gentle into the good night. "Rage," he says, "rage, rage against the dying of the light." And this, in counterpoint to my feeling of defeat, is also what I feel tonight: absolute rage. Rage that many of you in the GGNRA have ignored our pleas, our letters, our well-researched facts, our goodwill, our huge numbers - huge numbers! - our hopefulness, our willingness to cooperate and compromise. Rage that you don't see us, don't seem to care about us, mostly rage that you have lied to us and it doesn't seem to bother you.

So I guess, in summary, I would rather feel rage than defeat. It is unfortunate that these two emotions seem to be the only ones available to me when confronted with a faceless bureaucracy that seems to care nothing about thousands of people who are only trying to experience a bit of simple joy in their lives. I would much rather feel hopeful, cooperative, friendly, energetic, wanting to help, and compromising, but you don't give me these options. You really have lost me, I'm afraid. I'm sorry for this. I'm sorry for you, for me, for the many other people your decisions affect, for our dogs, for the children in our lives, and I'm especially sorry for the individuals who've devoted their lives to a hateful vendetta: those few San Franciscans who have made dog-hating their mantra. That must be a very sad way to live. To all of these people who have gone against us, I can only say: you have accomplished nothing more than succeeding in breaking our hearts. I can't thank you for that, but I can thank you for the opportunity to tell you, very sincerely, how I feel about it.

Florence Sarrett:
Before I say anymore, I would like to - I'm sure I speak on behalf of all the dog owners who are here: to ask you to express our sympathy to Dr. Wayburn, and hope for his total recovery. Dr. Wayburn is one of our friends. [The Chair, Rich Bartke, announced at the beginning of the meeting that Commissioner Edgar Wayburn, MD had 'fallen and hit his head' and was recuperating at home.]

Now I would like to use my three minutes to ask Mr. O'Neill to clarify a couple of points.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Tell us who you are, please.

Florence Sarrett:
Florence Sarrett.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Thank you.

Florence Sarrett:
In January, the Chairman adjourned this Commission with a promise that for 120 days no changes would be made in enforcement or signage. But early in April, 'Pets on Leash' signs appeared at Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, later at Crissy Field. Mr. O'Neill has stated that 'Washington made us do it.' Mr. O'Neill, would you please now identify, by name and office, exactly who it was in Washington, who made you do it. We would like to be in touch with them.

[Pause.]

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
I just, you know, I don't want to get into…

[Loud audience objections.]

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
Let me just say, is the fact - you know, I find it a bit insulting in that the one person who stood up for you all, who is willing to risk my own career …

[Loud audience objections.]

Unidentified Audience Member:
Answer the question!

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
… and go forward to be able to get permission to be able to go through a process to promulgate a regulation -

Unidentified Audience Member:
Who told you that? Who told you that's necessary?

Florence Sarrett:
We simply want to write a letter to this person or these people, and you have never identified them, so we cannot protest to your superior who is restricting you.

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
Let me - as long as the regulation - we all are anxiously awaiting to be able to get into the ANPR process to make it … let me say: as long as the regulation is in place, unless you inform the public that the regulation is the regulation, there's no way to uphold citations with respect to activities that occur that are in violation of that, and that's basically, obviously, a legal decision. Reaction now: I'm anxious to get on to the future; I think you all know that. I don't like this pounding, I don't like to be seen in a negative light on this, I have stepped forward and tried to get a change for this, and I understand, I've met with a lot of dog walking groups, but as long as the regulation is in place, if indeed you're going to be able to enforce the regulation, you've got to educate the public that the regulation exists. We hope we are going to be able to get into a process where that could be changed.

[Loud audience objections.]

Unidentified Audience Members:
Answer the question!

Florence Sarrett:
On April 11th, the Chronicle editorial quoted you as follows: "enforcement will remain the same, at the discretion of rangers, and aimed only at aggressive and destructive dogs." Was that a correct quotation?

[Pause.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Would you please go on with your comments.

[Loud audience objections: "Answer it! You're not answering! Represent us! Answer our questions! You're a public servant!]

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
It's … exact quote; that the enforcement hasn't changed. It's always at the discretion of the law enforcement person in the field.

[Loud audience objections.]

Florence Sarrett:
In other words, that was a correct quotation - they quoted you correctly?

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
Yeah.

Florence Sarrett:
OK, my question, then, is: during the past few weeks of warnings and citations, at Funston and Baker Beach, these citations and warnings were given to dogs which were -- to owners of dogs which were not out of control. Is the policy changed? Or, are they the result of orders from your office or other offices? If from other offices, would you please identify them.

[Pause.]

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
Well, I -- I mean, obviously, as the Superintendent's Report indicated, there were, like, 265 contacts. There were only -- and most of those were education about that. There were verbal warnings, where it was necessary.........

.........

.........

Unidentified Speaker:
Next question?

Rich Bartke:
Speaking to the Commission? We're bound by federal - we keep saying this, over and over, we're advisory; we advise. You have given us nothing else that you want us to do. You're making the same speeches that we heard last week, the week before…

Greg Herlein [from audience]:
Are we on the agenda for January, or not?

[Loud audience objections.]
…

Rich Bartke, Chair:
What is the question, again?

Greg Herlein [from audience]:
Are we on the agenda for January, sir?

Rich Bartke, Chair:
No, you're not.

[Several audience members: "Can we be?"]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
You will call me, and we'll discuss what it is, and we already have a full agenda…

[Loud audience objections.]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Call me, let's discuss it….

Greg Herlein [from audience]:
Are you attempting to avoid going on the record with this, sir? We would like to be heard publicly, to the Commission. We would like a date.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
You are on the record, I am on the record. Now…

Greg Herlein [from audience]:
When can we make a presentation to you, sir?

Rich Bartke, Chair:
You are making it.

[Loud audience objections.]

Greg Herlein [from audience]:
On the agenda, as and agenda item as you've asked us to do. But you control the agenda.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Next speaker.

Tom Lark: [?]
My name is Tom Lark [?], and I'm a native San Franciscan, very familiar with Fort Funston, obviously a pro-dog person. A couple things that I don't understand, and I can't claim to know all the details about how all of this works. But, the impression I have gotten over the discussions I've heard over the last several meetings are that there is a rule here that says dogs cannot be off leash … national recreation area, so there must be enforcement of that law before we can make any changes. However, it seems to me that, at least since 1979, or whenever it is that the GGNRA took over Fort Funston, there's never really been any enforcement. But, as far as I know, no Superintendents have ever lost their jobs, no one's ever been fined, nothing's ever happened -- it's just gone on the way it was - until about a week ago. So, I'm wondering why it is, when we're talking about this, I believe it's called ANPR process, why it is that things just can't stay the same until that process gets started? And, it's obvious that things have changed. I've been going to Fort Funston for years with my dog. I've never been approached by rangers at all, in terms of leashing my dog, until a week and a half ago. I took three steps out of my car, and they told me that if I didn't put my dog on a leash, I would get a ticket. So, obviously, the enforcement has changed. And I'm wondering, again -- these are my questions to Mr. O'Neill: Why can't things just stay the same until we get into the process? And, secondly, did you, yourself, tell the park rangers, or whoever they report to, to start aggressively enforcing the off leash laws within the past several weeks?

[Pause.]

[Audience members: "Did you?", "We want an answer."]

Rich Bartke, Chair:
I think that question's been asked and answered -

[Audience members: "No, it hasn't!", "No!", "Every citizen deserves to have their questions answered.", "Can we just hear the answer again, then?"]

Tom Lark: [?]
.. once more: did you, Mr. O'Neill, tell park rangers, or whoever they report to, somebody there, to actively start aggressively enforcing the off leash policy within the past several weeks?

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
That was not a directive that I gave. We -- I said that our ongoing plan - we've met with the dog walking groups, we've conferred exactly what our process is, I've communicated this on updates on our education, enforcement, and other policies on the web page on four different occasions, we've sent a detailed letter to each of the dog groups spelling this out in detail, we've -- and so, I rely on the chief of our enforcement branch to determine how best to achieve the enforcement of the regulation over time. We do not have the staff to be there on all occasions, obviously, so, if we're there, we have to do it on-the-spot basis. I'm relying on the good judgment of the staff to carry out, basically, an enforcement program that focuses, first and foremost, on education, and lastly, on the need to give a citation.

Tom Lark: [?]
One other question, then. Would it be possible for you to tell the head of enforcement to please go back to the way things were? …

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
That's the same thing as the chief of the California Highway Patrol directing… that they're not going to enforce the 55 mile an hour speed limit….. They want their enforcement folks to … know when and how to enforce it.

Tom Lark: [?]
Well, I think it's time for the next person to speak… but you didn't answer my question.

Avrum Shepard:
Good evening, my name is Avrum Shepard. I've lived in San Francisco all my life; I was born here. I really am so disappointed to see a public servant lying the way you do, Mr. O'Neill. I have seen Mr. Bartke sit there and just say that 'I have no control over what goes on'. You're supposed to be here representing the citizens of San Francisco, and the people that use Golden Gate National Recreation Area. You're not doing it! I intend to make it my business to see how we can have you replaced. You're not irreplaceable, sir. Mr. O'Neill, I've been standing here, listening to you not answer questions. I'll tell you that on November the 15th at approximately 11:30 in the morning, I was at Fort Funston. I got out of my car, with two dogs, and we started towards the back of the Fort. I was approached by a ranger who I had never seen before. He was very polite, although not the same kind of polite as most of the rangers that I'm used to. Most of them are very friendly. This guy wasn't friendly. He also had a gun. I didn't see guns on the rest of the rangers at Fort Funston; I don't think I've ever noticed them there. He asked me to leash the dogs -- he didn't ask me, he told me. I said: "Why?" He said, "There's a sign over there." I said, "Well, I've been bringing my dogs over here for a long time, and they haven't been leashed. What's different now?" "Well, I don't know, but there's a sign over there." That's real education. Is that how you teach people? This gentleman's name was _______________, in case you want to follow up with Mr. _________. I said "I don't understand this. You know, for thirty years, we've been able to walk dogs off leash here, and you come out here today and say that we can't do that." He said "Well, there's a sign there, and besides, Mr. O'Neill told me that we have to enforce the law. He sent me out there." He said that he was there with you in the morning, and that you had told him and the rest of the rangers that were there, to enforce the rule. That's why, Mr. O'Neill, I'm saying that you're a liar. And you're sitting there, shuffling papers, and not answering questions, when people are asking you legitimate questions. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sheila Mahoney:
My name is Sheila Mahoney and I came tonight with a real Jeremiah against you, Mr. O'Neill, but other people have … to deal with that, so: I, too, should be home in my sickbed instead of addressing you. I'm here because Thanksgiving Day was so beautiful at Fort Funston, just like the old days. There were no rangers in view; nobody had any fear about getting a ticket. Just everyone and their dogs enjoying a gorgeous, peaceful day. Now, with all the history we've been through together, you know, I ask you -- and all the double-talk tonight, frankly -- I ask you: Should we believe your words, or your actions? That's my problem. I feel like you can't shine me on any longer. But I do have a legitimate question:

If a ranger comes up to me, and says, "Leash your dog!" and I say, "I'm sorry, but I don't agree that that's the law" and I keep a very civil tone, will I get a ticket?

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Uh huh [nodding head].

Sheila Mahoney:
OK, that's all - Mr. O'Neill, would you tell me whether I'll get a ticket?

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
I can't say; the circumstances - anytime, as long as the regulation exists --

Sheila Mahoney:
OK, the answer is "Yes." Thank you.

OK, number two. I felt I should bring up another subject, tonight, in case you don't know it. Remember that Sunset Trail, that the old people used to like to go on, that was 'dangerous for people', who weigh maybe a maximum of 275 pounds? Well, gee whiz, this weekend there was a National Park vehicle driving down that path. I don't know how a couple of people who are, maximum 275 pounds, would be in danger, whereas a two ton pickup isn't. That's all I have to say. Oh, somebody asked me for Mr. Bartke's telephone number.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
It's in the phone book, but it's area code 510,758-5100.

Sheila Mahoney:
5100. Alright, thank you.

Colby Watts [?]:
Hi, my name is Colby Watts [?]. I'm from Pacifica, and that's one of my points: I just want to make it clear that everybody who's here is not necessarily a San Franciscan. What you're doing is representing the views and the interests of everybody in the Bay Area, so -- I think Mr. Bartke actually spoke to that point, too. Everybody else made some pretty good points on tyrannical central governments and taxation without representation, so I'm not going to rail on that so much. I really just want to make a suggestion. Mr. O'Neill, you've made it pretty clear that you're pretty powerless to do anything, and so what I'd like to do is suggest that number one, as somebody else said, we go ahead and get onto the agenda for the January meeting, and also, I'd like to suggest that we somehow teleconference, or whatever, your boss, your next up the chain of command, so -- obviously, you're being a firewall for that person, to try to keep us at bay, but we need to go ahead and start escalating this up further and further. And if you're powerless, or ineffectual, or a bureaucrat -- no offense - we need to start to escalate this up. Again, we're all taxpaying citizens. You're not going to find a community this close and effective to come in, who are going to spend their, spend till eleven o'clock, eleven thirty at night, to come in and speak on something so near and dear to their heart. I see everybody checking their watches; it is almost eleven thirty. So, again, I suggest that we bring the next level of authority in so that we can start to move this forward to get some sort of conclusion that's going to effectively represent these people, these citizens of the United States. I don't want to make this a civics lesson, but you're representing us; no offense, Mr. O'Neill, but you serve us. We pay your salary. Remember that. Thank you.

Susan Giacomini Allan, Commissioner:
Superintendent O'Neill, I wonder if you could -- it's come up over and over again - and I just hope that you could explain it to me… the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is at the Office of Management and Budget. What kind of timeline are we talking about? And when do we have the opportunity for public input…?

Brian O'Neill, Superintendent:
Yeah, OK, well, that's what - I did exactly as the gentleman just said: I flew into Washington to emphasize to the Director of the Park Service personally the importance of her assigning a person, a process manager, to be able to hand-carry it - walk - that notice of the, Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking through all of the folks that had to sign off on it. That process: she promised me that she would, she's been true to her word, she assigned a woman who's done a very good job of moving that through, it's over at the Office of Management and Budget at the present time. They have a requirement of a period of days, I forget the number of days, in which they have to review it. We're hopeful, and this gets back to the comment, when we get the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, noticed in the Federal Register, we're all anxious to do exactly what you said. How do we structure the public involvement process so each of you feels like it's got integrity, that the trust relationship is built, that we've heard from all elements of the community. I can only say is that we've talked to some of the representatives of the dog walking groups, I've asked for their help in helping us to define the full breadth of a public involvement process that will work in this case. I'm open to any of your suggestions on how best to do it, so that we have the kind of interaction and dialogue that we all seek. And so, I think, what I'm trying to do is to get over this hurdle of not being able to affect the future, by getting the future clear, so we can move into exactly what we desire. Hopefully, in January we will have gotten word, and begin that process. All I can say: we're doing what we can. I took a special trip back there to make that point.

[Unidentified Speakers:
"You're doing your job.", "Because the mail's not working in Washington!]

Joe Hague:
Hi, my name is Joe Hague. Supervisor O'Neill, thank you for the things you are doing to move this process forward - but, I once again am going to bring up some of the discrepancies that I keep hearing. On April 11, you had stated that there would be no change in the enforcement of the dog policy. The week of 9/11, I talked to Chris Powell, and she told me there was no change in the enforcement; if dogs were being destructive, or misbehaving, it was at the discretion of the rangers. I understand that.

The week of November 15th, there were more than half a dozen rangers out there, issuing warnings and tickets -- now that seems like that's a change in enforcement. When the ranger who gave me a ticket tells me that headquarters sent them to Fort Funston to issue tickets, that seems like it was a change in the enforcement. When Yvette Ruan, I think that's her name, told me that last January, that the Park Service decided to increase enforcement, that seems like a change, or a discrepancy, in everything else we've been hearing.

If you are saying there's no change of enforcement, I request that you go back to your staff and tell them that. Not that they should ignore when people are doing things, their dogs are being destructive, they're not picking up after their dogs -- we want that enforced. But for them to … extreme, going about business, like we normally do, and our dogs behaving -- let us walk our dogs in peace. Thank you.

Anne Farrow:
I'm Anne Farrow, I'm Co-Chair of San Francisco Dog Owners Group, and I'm also a daily walker at Fort Funston. I had some other things to say, but it has been said several times. The Park Service now claims to be educating dog owners. SF DOG has, since 1997, offered to work with the Park Service on an off leash education program. We've been consistently ignored. The Park Service seems to have education and intimidation all kind of mixed up. We would be happy to work with the Park Service on a positive, responsible, off leash recreation educational program. We do not believe that ordering visitors to leash their dogs is education or recreation.

Francine Podenski:
My name is Francine Podenski, and I'm from SF DOG, and I just want to add a rider note to this. Because of the behavior as of late, our membership is increasing [audience laughter] a better recruiting tool, and I want to thank you for that.

Lisa Vittori:
My name is Lisa Vittori, and actually, Francine and I didn't plan our remarks to be together, but, last time there were five of us here; this time, there are close to a hundred people here, and thank you for issuing those tickets, because now people are listening to what we've been saying, which is that the Park Service is basically denying us public process, if nothing else.

You know, I've been working in the elementary schools a lot, and there's a rule in the kindergartens especially, that's reinforced over and over, which is to tell the truth. And when you make a promise, you keep your promise, and if you can't keep your promise, you say that to somebody, "I can't keep my promise." Well, quite frankly, last January, we were really happy with you because you -- somebody in the hallway said, "Democracy works!" - and we were impressed that you came up with a solution, Chairman Bartke. But now, I can't say I think that you're -- I'm not even going to go there!

Somebody just asked me to read something that Brian said last January 23rd -- Mr. O'Neill, sorry:

"So we will continue to use that discretionary authority, and we will do it in a very responsible way."

That's what you said when you were asked if you were going to be enforcing dog laws, only citing "egregious" situations, where you would enforce dog laws.

Many people who are getting cited are being told by the rangers that they're being cited for two reasons: One is that you've told them to do so, and the other is that, basically, we shouldn't have sued the Park Service [over Fort Funston closure in March 2000] a long time ago. The maintenance people have told me that; I talk to a lot of the maintenance people, they've told me that -- many times.

When I was an employee of the Park Service, you reinforced with us many times, and I remember being at some new employees' orientation, where you told us that 'the way to get something done is to come to me, and then to organize, and then to come to me again, and then to organize.' Well, we have come to you, you told us what we needed to do, we've organized, we've come back, we've employed the public process, we've done it repeatedly, and when you ask us not to say anything, or not to give you any new information -- we are giving you new information. There's increasing enforcement, and it's not just at Fort Funston, because that's not even where I go; I go to Crissy Field. Two Thanksgivings ago, it was Utopia; it was a beautiful Thanksgiving Day, there were all kinds of people tourists, dogs, surfers, you know, whoever it was out there. Now, even more than giving out tickets, what you're doing is intimidating people and having people not come there. You're losing your constituency. But again, I want to thank you all, because you have helped us mobilize the actions that we need to take next.

And I do ask one more thing -- [Timer beeps.] if you could turn that off for a minute, thank you -- I ask for your courage. That's what I want from you: your courage. Thank you.

John Keating:
Good evening, this is John Keating speaking. I want to again thank all of you on the Commission for your patience on these long evenings, and your public service on this Commission, particularly in light of your important function of helping the Park Service to make the right decision by ensuring that they hear the public's voices, the public's concern. Otherwise, the bureaucracy can handle things themselves. You're here to help ensure that they let the people be heard.

Last January, Chairman Bartke asked for a suggestion as to what can be done to fix this problem. I think the single greatest thing that this Commission can do to solve this problem is to require that the Park Service staff report to you accurately, and not distort the information you get. No oversight commission, whether it's Congressional, intelligence, anything, can function appropriately if they don't have the political spine or independence to demand that they get correct information…

Over the last several meetings we've tried to warn you of this coming problem that you were going to have with this enforcement campaign. The response from the Park Service is to deny that they were escalating it. At the last Commission meeting, I stood up -- I thought I was made a fool of, because I told you about rangers out there telling people to leave the park, and go to jail; I heard this, that people would be sent to jail. I heard those comments in November at Fort Funston, and people wrote statements about those comments, so it's reality. But last Commission meeting , where I told you about that, I was followed by the Assistant Secretary -- Assistant Superintendent -- who reported to you: 'there's little change.' Now, obviously, you're going to have to listen to what staff tells you, rather than what the public tells you, and I appreciate the deference you give to staff. But when you are confronted with the repeated comments that you're not getting the correct information, I really think you'll function better if you check those out.

Now, obviously, I have my own views about the way the GGNRA should operate, and how they should receive public input. May I add, the Park Service may have their own views. But, you should look at what is clearly an unbiased view, which is that of the federal court judge who looked at this issue. And what he concluded, which was that the park staff essentially was biased, they attempted to skew the record, they attempted to 'railroad' through the changes they wanted to make, while strategically avoiding the public comment, and the court also said they were dead wrong on the law.

Now, the last key comments I want to make is about this conundrum about 'Washington said we had to do it.' I tried to check it out, too. I talked to the Chief Solicitor in Washington, who presumably would be the one at the top of the Solicitor's office who is making this -- the Chief Solicitor dealing with these sorts of issues. And the message I got is that when you have a situation like this, where the park, after twenty years, decides they want to change their policy, and they're going to go through some regulatory process to do it, it's always a problem about whether you enforce the changes while you're going through the public input process. And what they said is that it's handled by the 'discretion of enforcement.' And that's fine; it solves the problem -- except, it makes it clear, that you're not going to get busted if you let things stay the way they are until the public input happens, and it's unfair for you to go ahead and change it all, and it belies -- change it all before the public input, to try to skew the process again, and it belies the fairness of the process.

So, there's two things, briefly, two more things, that I think this Advisory Commission ultimately is going to have to deal with.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
Could you do it briefly?

John Keating:
Right. One is, this concept that there's no choice; it's simply the law. Well, the Park Service interpreted it one way for twenty years, and now they tell you they have no choice but to vigorously interpret it the other way. That's just not what they're telling us in Washington about what the Park Service can do. Secondly, is the concept of why this change was made. You're going to have to deal with that eventually, and it's abundantly clear that the unilateral change occurred when the attorneys -- remember, the ones that the Court said that they were biased against us, and trying to prevent public input? -- that those people decided that the way to stop us from forcing the Park Service to allow public input was to say that we are illegal. So, it was an effort to prevent us from having access to the courts. Once you understand that, you'll understand why they are hiding behind the mantra that you have no choice, and they have no choice, so they're not politically responsible for these changes.

And last, I'd like to close by saying: by God, there are thousands of people who want to enjoy the parks, want to be as respectful to people as we can, want to be helpful in passing legislation, whatever we can for the parks, if you'd just work with us, rather than attacking the primary users of the park. Thank you.

Rich Bartke, Chair:
… That concludes the people who wish to address this issue. There's nothing further to come before the Commission; we'll be adjourned.