GGNRA WatchDog  
Second Section

"Those park visitors who choose to violate the leash regulation are subject to warnings and citations."

Well, so much for the stock response about how it's up to the discretion of the individual officer. What started out as a conciliatory approach (albeit due to a thousand angry citizens and their supervisors refusing to accept rescission of the 1979 Pet Policy) and wandered through bureaucratic jargon now has this clear challenge, stated at the end of a May 22nd "ANPR Update" on the GGNRA's website:

ANPR UPDATE

This update is the 2nd in a series of public information reports on the ANPR process.

Overview
On March 21, 2001, the National Park Service (NPS) announced it would pursue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to determine whether the park should engage in formal rulemaking regarding pet management in the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA). If undertaken, the formal rulemaking process would specifically address how pet use of the park would be managed at the GGNRA.

ANPR Status
Since the announcement, park staff has researched how the ANPR will be executed, what the constraints are, and the public's role in the process. A draft ANPR, which must be reviewed by both the Director of the NPS and the regulatory offices of the Department of the Interior, is being written. If approved, the ANPR will be published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice will announce how and when public comment will be taken.

ANPR Project Manager
A project manager is being hired to oversee the ANPR process and to integrate it into the park's planning and management efforts. The position should be filled by July 2001.

Public Involvement
Public input is a key element in the decision-making process for both the ANPR process and, if undertaken, the formal rulemaking process. All park user and interest groups, including dog-walking groups, environmental organizations, board sailors, family advocates, senior groups, and the general public will have an opportunity to provide input throughout the public comment period.

Independent Consensus Building Group
To insure the broadest spectrum of community involvement and to build public confidence in the process, Superintendent O'Neill is exploring the use of an independent third-party consensus building group. The group would focus on the decision-making process and would work to develop good lines of communication with those who use or have an interest in the park and its resources.

Community Relations
Several positive developments are taking place. The Crissy Field Dog Group (CFDG) has forwarded a detailed strategy describing how they would like to work with park staff to promote responsible dog walking in the park. CFDG started a monthly clean-up program and developed an informational flyer to hand out to the public. The Fort Funston Dog Walkers also have a monthly clean-up program. Within the last month, park staff has shared information with local elected officials, environmental groups and the area's community leaders on the progress of the ANPR.

Education on Leash Regulation
Superintendent O'Neill has met with dog walking groups, environmental organizations and the media to discuss enforcement of the nationwide regulation requiring that all pets, where allowed, be on leash in national parks. To help educate the public, the regulation will continue to be posted throughout the park. Those park visitors who choose to violate the leash regulation are subject to warnings and citations.

The following postcard was received in early May by those on the Advisory Commission mailing list:

ATTENTION PET OWNERS: REPORT ON ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

The GGNRA has received approval and started a process known as Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). One of the primary uses of ANPR is to involve the interested public in a regulatory action at an early stage.

The first steps of the process are to draft the ANPR and to have it reviewed in Washington, D.C. and approved for publication in the Federal Register. Then, public input is collected and evaluated. GGNRA is working on the draft and hopes to have it ready shortly.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service

A NOTE FROM THE ADVISORY COMMISSION

Our May meeting, held at Point Reyes Station, dealt with Marin issues. The June meeting at Half Moon Bay will deal with San Mateo issues. The July meeting will be in San Francisco and will include a progress report on the rulemaking process for pets.

As was stated at our January 23 public hearing at the Presidio, the 1979 Pet Policy recommendations made by this Commission are not applicable to the park. They are unenforceable, violate Federal regulations, and never became park regulations.

GGNRA has started a process to see whether or not the existing nationwide regulation, which requires that all pets be on leash where pets are allowed in national parks, can be adapted somewhat to the conditions of this park. The ANPR process will allow for public input on all sides of the issue. We anticipate multiple opportunities for your input during upcoming months. This notice, addressed to you, means that you are on our mailing list and will be notified of the dates and locations of future meetings.

Richard Bartke, Chairman
Amy Meyer, Vice Chair
GGNRA/Point Reyes Advisory Commission

***

on other side, dated May 7, 2001 - NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2001 at GGNRA Park Headquarters, Bldg. 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco has been CANCELLED. You will be notified of the agenda and location for the next public meeting of the Advisory Commission scheduled to be held in San Mateo County on June 26.

State Senator Jackie Speier's Letter to Brian O'Neill
Demands Signs Be Taken Down


April 5, 2001

Superintendent Brian O'Neill
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Fort Mason

San Francisco, CA 94123

Dear Superintendent O'Neill,

I am writing to express my extreme disappointment at your decision to post signs requiring dogs to be on leash at GGNRA properties.

The public was certainly led to believe that the GGNRA Advisory Commission's Jan. 23rd decision would preclude any such action for 120 days. In fact, according to the transcript of the meeting, Chairman Richard Bartke stated as part of the resolution that "the staff make no change in its enforcement during the next 120 days." Prior to the vote, when asked by a member of the audience what instructions would be given to park staff, Chairman Bartke responded, "Hold off signs, citations, and so forth, until they come back with a plan."

However, the March 30 update clearly states "that the regulation would be enforced, until, or if," there is a change in regulation. In yet another paragraph, the GGNRA states that enforcement of the leash law will continue to be "up to the discretion of the officer."

These apparently contradictory statements are confusing to the general public. Your actions will likely result in some members of the public leashing their dogs, some avoiding GGNRA properties all together and for those who continue to use the GGNRA for off-leash recreation, a tense park experience as they worry if a citation is waiting for them around the next corner. I must ask you, why is it necessary to take such actions at this particular time? 

While your decision to post signs may be consistent with National Park Service regulations requiring dogs to be on leash in federal parks, it appears ill-timed in light of your announcement to begin meeting with stakeholders to determine a dog policy for the GGNRA. I urge you to reconsider your decision to post these signs so you may enter into meetings with the public in a spirit of good faith. Dogwalkers, who have been at the forefront of educating others about responsible dog ownership, were hopeful when you announced on March 21 that the path had been cleared for stakeholder meetings to begin. Had they known the obscurely worded announcement on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking meant that signs would be posted requiring dogs to be on leash during this process, I am sure their reaction, as well as mine, would have been quite different.

I welcome the opportunity to talk with you further about this issue.

All the best,

JACKIE SPEIER

State Senator
8th District


Superintendent Asked to Remove Signs

Via E-Mail: Brian_O'Neill@nps.gov

Mr. Brian O'Neill, Superintendent
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123
                                                                                     April 29, 2001
Dear Mr. O'Neill:

I attended the January 23, 2001 GGNRA Advisory Commission meeting in a desire to participate in a public hearing by speaking to the Commission. I am among the large group who signed the roster that circulated to individuals standing outside in the rain. I left the meeting without speaking or being admitted to the building based on the Commission's specific statement through Chairman Bartke that GGNRA would not change signs or citation practice while the matter was being studied with input from the community.

GGNRA's statements thereafter that off-leash walking was illegal were misleading to the public, betrayed a spirit of cooperation or due process, and were an attempt to exploit a dog attack tragedy. For example, in the KPIX television broadcast entitled "Dogfight", aired February 8, 2001, GGNRA Ranger Weideman flatly stated that the codified 1979 Pet Policy was illegal. Because there is a significant difference between stating that a long-standing policy is "null and void", i.e. unenforceable, and that it is "illegal", that GGNRA permitted or encouraged Mr. Weideman's statements fostered my perception that it was not acting in good faith.

Without commencing on the promised community involvement, GGNRA has recently posted signs that off-leash walking is prohibited. That sign change is a breach of Chairman Bartke's January 23, 2001 promise to me and the public, a dramatic alteration of the GGNRA use which requires public input and hearing, and is inconsistent with the long-standing policy and practice developed through prior public comment and policy development process. This is offensive to me as a citizen, to the elected representatives of San Francisco, and to state and other leaders who have asked for cooperation.

You have recently stated that GGNRA will be taking a leadership role in involving the public in dog issues at GGNRA. In order to fulfill that goal, please listen carefully to the local community, including representatives such as California Senator Jackie Speier. I hope you will be influenced by Senator Speier's April 4, 2001 letter to you that posting of signs is both ill-timed in light of your announcement to begin meeting with stakeholders to determine dog policy, and is contradictory and confusing. GGNRA Advisory Commissioners also expressed deep concern over the signs, especially Doug Nadeau in his April 24, 2001 Commission meeting comment that erection of signs is "a terrible, terrible public relations error" and Redmond Kernan's recommendation that GGNRA take the signs down. Without the signs, GGNRA of course still has the authority to cite egregious behavior of any kind.

Please listen to the local community and representatives such as Senator Speier and those Advisory Commissioners who are in touch with the needs of San Franciscans. I urge you to remove the signs so you may enter into meetings with the local community in the spirit that the January 23, 2001 and other promises have not been broken. I appreciate your attention to this.

/Signed/

Carol Copsey

Happy Dogs at
Crissy Field Celebration

click here for photos!

click here
for transcript of

City and County of San Francisco
Neighborhood Services and Parks Committee

Tuesday, May 1, 2001
Hearing on Fort Funston
& progress report from Deputy City Attorney

 

But, You Promised!

"We want to state clearly that we have no intent to eliminate . . . off-leash dog walking,'' O'Neill said. "All plans either maintain or expand off-leash dog walking. Under any future scenario, more generous areas of the Presidio's northern waterfront will be available to dogs.''

          -  click here to read this interesting and brief article from 1995
             Canine Lovers Win Fight Over Off-Leash Walking
             by Steve Rubenstein, Chronicle Staff Writer
             Saturday, March 18, 1995

 
Transcript of the off-leash issue discussion under Non-Agenda Items
at the GGNRA Advisory Commission Tuesday night, April 24, 2001.

click here -
then view or print.


At the January 23, 2001 Advisory Commission meeting, there were around 1,000 more individuals who wished to speak, but Chairman Bartke persuaded the people to postpone their opportunity to speak based on the suggestion that there would be no changes in the interim while the matter was being studied.

Mr. Bartke's proposal was that the public should let him curtail the right to public comment that night based on assurances of good faith that the GGNRA would not take action in the interim while studying the proposed change to the policy.

Here's the quote of a key point in the 1/23 meeting transcript where Mr. Bartke specifically suggests there will be no changes to signs in the interim:

CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I know. But whereas the Commission doesn't have to obey the rules, the park staff does. We will ask that the -- maybe this is implicit in the suggestion I made, not to be explicit, is that we ask that the staff not take any precipitous action to do anything until it's done these things within the next 120 days.

MS. VITTORI: So you're going to ask the staff to hold off to do anything --

CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Hold off signs, citations, and so forth, until they come back with a plan.

MS. VITTORI: Thank you very much.
[Applause.]

The Spin Goes On!

NEW!  Letter from GGNRA Advisory Commissioners Bartke & Meyer

"Spin: 7. To provide an interpretation (of a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion."
- The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

The 1979 Pet Policy was the guiding principle for off-leash dog walking for decades in the GGNRA. Suddenly and improperly, Amy Meyer presented a motion to drop it at the Advisory Commission's November meeting without the item even being on the agenda. After objections from members of both the audience and the commission, Richard Bartke ruled the motion out of order:

Amy Meyer:  Okay, you have two other resolutions here.  Some of you I’ve had a chance to explain this to, a few of you I haven’t. ..... [brief remarks and ten clauses omitted, see transcript] ..... Now therefore be it resolved (back to page 3) that the GGNRA Advisory Commission rescinds its 1978 resolution. 

Richard Bartke: We’re open for commission discussion on that combined resolution.  Redmond.

Redmond Kernan: I don’t find it on our agenda.  This is to rescind a policy that applies to the total GGNRA.  I think it should be discussed, but I don’t think we should move on something that hasn’t been calendared, noticed, that people have not been alerted to.

======== after some discussion and audience objections ========

Richard Bartke:  I’m going to rule that motion as out of order, because I am convinced that the tradition of this commission, as well as our organic documents, require that there be a noticed hearing and that the public have an opportunity to speak.

So, the leash policy rescission went on the agenda for the next meeting, January 23rd. And an unprecedented groundswell of opposition was galvanized. Over a thousand citizens showed up at a meeting room that was way too small for the audience. Hundreds were barred by police from even entering the building, left out in the rainy night without even the courtesy of a loudspeaker to hear the proceedings. Almost all of the San Francisco Supervisors spoke, and threatened to take back the lands given to the Park Service in the seventies on the condition that existing uses such as off-leash dog walking must continue -- if the policy was rescinded.

So, the commission did not vote to rescind its policy because of this opposition. And they passed a resolution with a section calling for no changes for 120 days. Now with a lot of fanfare and press releases, the Park Service has announced a complex path called "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", which isn't even rulemaking itself. With rulemaking it would be years before a result... and in the meantime, signs stating that leashes are required are going up. And the new letter claims that the policy was no longer in force, anyway... so why was it on the agenda in the first place?

NEW!  Letter from GGNRA Advisory Commissioners Bartke & Meyer
(or just read it below, instead)

Undated but posted on GGNRA's website around April 20... Not addressed to any particular "Editor", this letter is a link from Advisory Commission and Press Release/Public Affairs sections of website... One link says, "Attention Dog Owners from the GGNRA Advisory Commission" but doesn't indicate if, when or where the commission discussed or approved this letter.

The letter reads as follows:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Editor --

We are writing to clear up a misunderstanding about off-leash dogs in Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The GGNRA Advisory Commission made several recommendations to Superintendent Brian O'Neill at our January 23 meeting. We asked him to meet with dog owners and with other interested parties. He has. We asked him to meet with other public land managers. A summit is getting underway. Our major request was that he try to find a way for our park to get an exception to the national regulation that all dogs be on-leash in national parks. He has done this by starting the process, awkwardly named "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," so that managers of this national park can attempt to craft a different legal dog management policy.

We did tell the audience a number of times at the January meeting that the Commission's 1978 policy recommendation permitting off-leash dogs in some places had been declared invalid and was no longer in force. The room was too noisy for this point to be heard. Instead, there is community perception that we will revisit dog issues at our May meeting; we will not because the rulemaking process has begun. New park signs state the standard national park dog leash requirement, which will be in place until -- and if -- the new rulemaking is successfully completed.

We would like to have a win/win situation for all park users. We hope that many people with various opinions will participate in the rulemaking process.

Richard Bartke, Chair
Amy Meyer, Vice-Chair
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Advisory Commission

Attend the GGNRA Advisory Commission meeting
Tue. Apr. 24, 7:30 p.m. Bldg. 201, Fort Mason

More than a thousand citizens and almost the entire San Francisco Board of Supervisors came to a cold, rainy, hard-to-find January 23rd meeting of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission, which was to vote on whether to rescind its 1979 Pet Policy. After hearing from fewer than fifty of those who tried to speak, the commission cut off further speakers.

The only reason the audience accepted being denied the right to speak was the commission's decision to table the motion for a 120 day period, during which there were explicitly to be no changes in policy or enforcement so that a good faith effort to engage in dialog with park users could begin.

Instead, while announcing a complex and time consuming process known as Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the media, the National Park Service made immediate changes on the ground, posting new signs which state "Pets on Leash".

This can do nothing but create confusion, resentment and conflict. What's more, rather than acknowledge the fact that the commission tabled a vote on the Pet Policy, the spin was put out in subsequent days that the policy was just "null and void" and that the issue would actually not be returning to the commission at all -- NOT!

The Commission meeting:

Tuesday, April 24th
7:30 p.m.

Building 201
(GGNRA Park Headquarters)
Fort Mason
Franklin & Bay Streets
San Francisco

see map

Although there are several other, possibly lengthy items on the agenda, citizens are free to speak at the end of the meeting under "Non-Agenda Items" after signing up at the start of the meeting.

Whether or not you attend the meeting, you can write to the commission, care of its chair, Rich Bartke, asking that they stand by their proposal of no changes in the leash policy at this time:

Mr. Richard Bartke, Chair
Advisory Commission
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Bldg. 201, Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA  94123

If you do write, mail your letter TODAY so that it will get into the commissioners' hands before the meeting!

click here for Earth Day 2000 Editorial -- same old story.

But here's good news: visit Green Friends !

What happened at Marin Open Space meeting in April? See Marin Human Society report.
Also, see photos, here!

Sign the Marin Open Space online petition!


The Marin Humane Society

Open Space Hotline
(415) 883-4621, x364


Point Reyes Light

Feb. 8 Editorial

 

     
 State Parks Off-Leash Study Bill by Sen. Jackie Speier

SB712 went before committee on Tuesday, April 24th, in Sacramento.

Please sign an online petition to support Senate Bill 712, Jackie Speier's proposed legislation for the State Department of Parks and Recreation to conduct a feasibility study regarding state park locations and conditions that would support off-leash dog activity.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/JSSB712/petition.html

Send email, fax or letters of support to the Natural Resources and Wildlife committee chair (Sheila Kuehl c/o committee consultant Patricia Hanson), with a copy to Jackie Speier. Put "support SB712" in the subject line.

We need to counter the concern that opening up off-leash areas will cause harm to the parks. Some ideas for your letters:

  Your concern and sensitivity for environmental issues Loss of many other off-leash areas Historical off-leash areas are lost when land is given to State Parks (i.e. San Mateo beaches)
  The importance of off-leash recreation for both you and your dogs
  What you do to insure a pleasant visit for all visitors to existing off-leash areas

Mailing address: State Capitol,Room# (see below), Sacramento,CA 95814
Sheila Kuehl (write her c/o: patricia.hanson@sen.ca.gov) Room 4032 Fax 916-324-4823
Jackie Speier (senator.speier@sen.ca.gov) Room 2032 Fax 916-327-2186

Did you miss The Independent article, "Protesters gather at Fort Funston fences" on April 10?
Click here for the article, reprinted with permission of The Independent and author Edith Alderette.

Appeal to Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior

Here's the text of the postcard people have been sending to Gale Norton recently.
If you haven't already sent one, click here, print it as a letter, and mail it today!

The Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington DC 20240

Dear Ms Norton,

I am writing to request your immediate help to preserve off-leash dog walking in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), a unit of the National Park Service (NPS) in the Bay Area.

Off-leash dog walking was recognized as a legitimate form of recreation on GGNRA lands when the parks were transferred from local to federal jurisdiction in the mid-1970s. Today, tens of thousands of people enjoy this form in recreation in these parks.

After extensive public review, several areas were designated as official off-leash recreational parks in a 1979 Pet Policy. Your office has already received over 17,000 petitions protesting closures for several of these areas in 1996 and 1999. We ask your support for a Section 7 rule as provided by 36 CFR 1.2(c) which will formalize the 1979 Pet Policy and restore access to the areas closed in San Francisco and Marin counties.

I deeply appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.

_________________________
Signature

print name _________________________
address ______________________________
             ______________________________

www.caldog.org

Point Isabel Dog Owners & Friends website

SIGN THE PETITION
TO KEEP POINT ISABEL AND BATTERY POINT OFF-LEASH

 

Protest Attended by Hundreds!

Click here to view an album of thirty photos from the April 7th demonstration.

History Lesson

Push has come to shove, folks! Do you remember the bumper sticker: "If you're not mad, you're not paying attention!"?

Early last year, the National Park Service (NPS) illegally closed ten acres at Fort Funston without input. We took them to court and they suffered a huge embarrassment and were dealt a federal injunction forcing them to re-open the area, after very damaging documents from the case's discovery phase showed the extent of the Park Service's efforts to sneak around the dog walking community:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/findings.htm

So they went through a complete sham of notice-and-comment, receiving 1100 comments and detailed factual responses opposing their plans. In spite of no valid science and no open public policy debate about the merits of converting a recreation area into a preserve, they blew it off, plain and simple. It was just the latest of a series of actions, Closure Creep:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/closurecreep.htm

Meanwhile, in May last year they removed the "voice control" signs at Fort Funston:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/offleashoffsigns.htm

Then in July, they removed those signs at Crissy Field:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/crissyheeled.htm

In November, without even having it on their agenda, the Advisory Commission was presented with a stealth motion to rescind their quarter-century old leash policy. After objections they had to admit this was out of order, and then were unable to rescind the policy in January due to a thousand angry citizens and almost all the supervisors objecting:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/advisorycommission.2001.01.23.htm

So, the NPS a few days later tried to sidestep this by falsely claiming the policy was null and void.

Then, they changed the signs at Ocean Beach to deceive people there about a longstanding compromise as to where off-leash walking was OK:
www.fortfunstonforum.com/oceanbeach.htm

Off-leash recreation was promised to be continued when they took our beaches in the seventies, and it was promised to continue when they raised money for the Crissy Field project which they are planning to crown with a big shindig in one month:
http://www.crissyfield.org

Now, they have planted the first new leash-required sign, on the chipped trail at Fort Funston, while crowing to the media that they are taking the lead on dogwalking in the Bay Area:
(see below)

They need to know that they need to keep their promises. We cannot afford to be marginalized with these new signs, and no explanation that has been put forth is acceptable.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor



PRESS RELEASE
RE: PROTEST AT FORT FUNSTON
on Saturday, April 7, 2001

For immediate release
April 5, 2001

Contact: Lydia Boesch (415) 841-1060

Park users of Fort Funston in San Francisco are planning a costumes-optional (Uncle Sam will definitely attend!) protest at the new twelve-acre fence in Fort Funston on Saturday, April 7th at 11:00 a.m. The purposes of the protest are to:

1. Protest the signs the National Park Service recently has placed at Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, and other parks included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), requiring that all pets be on leash. These signs are being placed despite and in violation of the Park Service's commitment to the San Francisco community in late January to negotiate a leash policy with the public over a 120- day period.

2. Support the request by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that the City be given greater local control of the San Francisco parks included in the GGNRA, including Fort Funston and Ocean Beach.

3. Launch a letter-writing campaign to the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, to (a) remind her that the National Park Service has closed permanently twelve very popular and beautiful recreational acres at Fort Funston, in spite of overwhelming local opposition to this closure and without scientific justification for the closure, and (b) notify her of the Park Service's violation of its January commitment to the San Francisco community.

For more information, please contact Lydia Boesch at (415) 841-1060.

Cell phone contacts day of protest:

415-305-8565
415-310-0589

"GGNRA is trying to do by fiat what it has learned it probably could not get away with if it fairly engaged in the public comment and rulemaking oversight process"

April 4, 2001

Mr. Brian O'Neill
Park Superintendent
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Bay and Franklin Streets
Building 201, Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123

Re: Recent Sign Changes Concerning Off Leash Dog Walking Recreation

Dear Superintendent O'Neill:

I understand that the Park Service is again changing signs such as to significantly restrict traditional off leash dog walking recreation. The new changes result in an activity restriction which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, and is highly controversial. Yet there appears to have been no compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures contemplated by 36 C.F.R. 1.5(b). See Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp 2d 1021 (2000).

Specifically, the Park Service recently removed the prior signs at Ocean Beach. The prior signs had clearly set forth and distinguished the portions of Ocean Beach where off leash dog walking recreational activity is tolerated from the restricted portions of the beach. The Park replaced those clear signs with unclear signs that eliminate the distinction between the restricted as opposed to unrestricted portions of the beach, and newly suggest that off lead dog walking is not allowed at all. That would be a substantial change to the historical recreation use pattern at Ocean Beach. The prior signs had reflected the result of substantial public debate, including ten thousand petition signatures objecting when the GGNRA staff previously suggested the closure. The prior signs also were consistent with the long term GGNRA policy concerning Ocean Beach while the current are not. There can be no dispute that it would be highly controversial and would be a significant alteration of the public use pattern to embark on such changes to the previously allowed and very popular off leash recreation use of Ocean Beach.

Additionally, your recent press release suggests that similar new signs will be installed at other areas of the GGNRA where off leash dog walking previously has been widely enjoyed . As you are well aware, such changes are highly controversial, and would significantly alter the predominate recreational use activity of certain areas of the National Recreation Area.

When the GGNRA tried to make such changes in January, thousands showed up at the public hearing. The Advisory Commission cut the hearing short before hearing from most of the people signed up to speak. The public allowed that to happen based on the representation made that "no action" would be taken on the proposal to eliminate the prior policy. The clear intent expressed by the Advisory Commission was that there would be no changes to off leash recreation in the 120 day interim while the GGNRA staff was to begin to investigate and have discussions on how to resolve the controversial issue.

You are well aware that the public comment presented on the earlier related restriction proposals clearly reflects that the park user community is overwhelmingly opposed and profoundly upset by the GGNRA campaign to further restrict recreational dog walking. Even the City of San Francisco has intervened to demand that you engage in careful public policy analysis and discussions before embarking on such changes that would so affect the quality of life of so many.

Yet it now appears that the GGNRA is trying to do by fiat what it has learned it probably could not get away with if it fairly engaged in the public comment and rulemaking oversight process.

Please exercise great care to comply with the requirements of public input. High respect for that democratic process might assist you in avoiding the peril of again igniting a firestorm of controversy over perceived inappropriate and arbitrary action.

Sincerely,

John B. Keating

New Sign Up Already at Fort Funston!

This sign was posted on Wednesday, April 4, 2001, at the beginning of the "chipped trail" by the northeast corner of the parking lot at Fort Funston.

The GGNRA's 1979 Pet Policy was up for recission at the Jan. 23rd Advisory Commission meeting. Due to an enormous, mostly locked-out crowd and the presence of almost all of the San Francisco Supervisors, the commission did not rescind the policy. They stopped listening to speakers protesting the recission and got assurances from the Superintendent that there would be no changes in leash enforcement during a 120 day period to look for solutions in a spirit of cooperation. Instead, the Park Service has now decided to post these signs (see below). This is a change in policy and a failure to act in good faith.


Call GGNRA about signs!

415 561-4720 Superintendent Brian O'Neill
If new signs go up, park goes back to City.

During a period in which its Advisory Commission has called for no changes in enforcement of leash policies, and while claiming to be building a constructive effort to resolve off-leash issues, the National Park Service has instead announced plans to aggressively post signs throughout the park and may begin ticketing park visitors with off-leash dogs. The Park Service has also posted misleading signs on Ocean Beach, seemingly extending the Snowy Plover leash-required area far beyond its actual zone (see below).

Superintendent Brian O'Neill must be made fully aware that if he goes forward with the planned sign-posting, he will without question ignite a firestorm of criticism and jeopardize the upcoming process on crafting a new leash policy. Perhaps more significantly, he must also be told in no uncertain terms that posting these signs, an action which is entirely his choice whether or not to do at this time, will lead to the immediate launch of a full-blown campaign by thousands of people to have the City of San Francisco take back its parklands which were given to the federal government with the explicit stipulation that all recreational uses be continued, which included off-leash dog walking.

Call Superintendent Brian O'Neil's office at 415 561-4720 and tell him that he does not need to post any new signs now, and that if he does post new leash signs you will do everything you can to have the City take back its park! These signs are not simply a clarification, they are a big change from the 1979 Pet Policy in effect at the GGNRA, and such a change should not be made in this way at this time.


Leash Signs Announced!

Here is a notice posted on the GGNRA website . The bold has been added by this GGNRA WatchDog website for emphasis.

Update on Dogwalking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area
March 30, 2001

This update is posted as part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s efforts to keep the public informed on dogwalking in GGNRA.

Superintendent Brian O’Neill announced on March 21 that the NPS will be undertaking a public process to address dogwalking in GGNRA called Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). Throughout this process the park continues to have the responsibility to carry out the current NPS regulation which requires dogs on leash in all national parks.

ANPR Process:

At a March 21, 2001 press conference, Superintendent O’Neill laid out the park’s intentions to gather public comments on dogwalking in the GGNRA and determine whether to take the process to its next step. That next step would be a form of rulemaking that could, if deemed appropriate, alter the existing regulation or provide some language that would specifically address how dog-use of the park would be managed at GGNRA.

“I want to assure all dogwalkers that we are committed to working through the ANPR process to explore all options for dog management in Golden Gate NRA,” said Superintendent O’Neill.

The park is currently exploring how the ANPR process will work at GGNRA, including how best to solicit all views on this issue. The superintendent is investigating the possibility of hiring a project manager to oversee the ANPR process. That individual could help coordinate public involvement and assist in crafting the ANPR language.

Enforcement of Present Regulation:

Superintendent O’Neill explained at recent meetings with dogwalkers and environmental groups that the regulation would be enforced until, or if, there was a change in the regulation precipitated by the process of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the park is beginning. He then informed the groups that enforcement of the regulation will ensure protection of the resources and other visitors and asked for dogwalkers’ assistance in helping carry this out.

“Visitor contact will focus strongly on education and outreach,” he added, ”but the cooperation of all parties would be critical in maintaining a cordial working relationship between the park and dog walking groups.”

Beginning the week of April 12, signs noting the on-leash regulation will be placed throughout the park to clarify the current regulation for all visitors. Again, however, the focus will continue to be on education about resource protection and visitor safety throughout the park and the decision on what action to take will be, as it has always been, up to the discretion of the officer.

The park will keep the public, including special interest groups, appraised on the progress and public involvement elements of the ANPR process and related actions carried out by the park.


GGNRA Advisory Commission Meeting:    

Superintendent Explains Off-Leash Rulemaking Option

Brian O'Neill, in his Superintendent's Report at the GGNRA Advisory Commission's March 27th meeting, announced that he has received approval from Washington to go forward with what is known as "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (ANPR) on the issue of off-leash recreation. While saying that it is not clear whether formal rulemaking would be desirable and that the process is new to the GGNRA, he pointed out that this method is not prescriptive in that it doesn't tell the GGNRA what to do ultimately.

The ANPR process would seek to determine first, "whether the community in its collective voice feels we should be enforcing the leash regulation or that there's a way to... designate areas that would be available" by days of week, area, hours of the day, etc., said O'Neill.

"We will increase our communication with all stakeholder groups and the general public," O'Neill claimed, saying that the process "will assure that all voices are heard in a non-threatening environment." The process had been announced at a press conference on March 21st (see news release, below).

One option under consideration is to hire a professional outside firm to facilitate the process.

The ANPR process is designed to determine, according to the Superintendent, "if it's the will of the community and the National Park Service to go through a more structured rulemaking process."

Amy Meyer, Vice Chair of the commission and chairing the meeting during Chair Rich Bartke's absence, said that the leash issue would not be returning to the commission and that the 120 day period announced at the last meeting therefore was not in effect.

It's not clear what all this means for the future. As the process unfolds, look to this website for ongoing news and analysis.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor

Ocean Beach Signs Deliberately Misleading?

This sign at Stairwell 21 on Ocean Beach gives the false impression that dogs must be on-leash when in fact they are allowed off-leash in the entire (North of Stairwell 21) beach in view here.

Click here for more Ocean Beach photos and story!


April 6, 2001

The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Park Access Closure At the Fort Funston Portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area 66 Fed. Reg. 3 (1/4/01)

Dear Secretary Norton:

I write to request response to the attached January 23, 2001 and February 15, 2001 correspondence. Those letters seek reconsideration and higher agency review of the local Park Service decision to fence off a favorite recreational area of the Fort Funston portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Many park users believe that the closure is bad public policy, does not comport with sound planning principles, is contrary to the urban open space recreational purpose for which the recreation area was set up, and is a
product of lack of candor and deliberate efforts to avoid reasonable scientific analysis. We have asked that the decision not be implemented until more carefully analyzed, but have received no local response to our requests for reconsideration. The decision to convert this recreation area into an off limits zone has such impact on the quality of life of so many that the City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution demanding that the Park Service delay implementation of the closure until full analysis of the impact of the closure could be made. The local Park Service seems to repeatedly ignore these governmental entity requests that the Park Service act more carefully and cooperatively.

The area was a former municipal park which the City had donated to the National Park System based upon the understanding that the traditional recreational uses would continue. The City has repeatedly protested Park
Service conduct in curtailing public use without first consulting with the City, but the complaints went unheeded. The Board of Supervisors passed an additional resolution that if the Park Service revoked the dog walking
recreational use historically enjoyed in the area the City would take action to try to force the Park Service to yield back the former City park property. I understand that the Department of Interior has committed to further
rulemaking before the temporary park changes involved in this closure are made permanent. However, the local Park Service appears to be moving forward with a permanent closure, and still without adequate analysis. I am worried that such conduct may irreparably harm the park and wildlife. Please confirm that the Park Service will indeed comply with the rulemaking procedure before it permanently closes the area.

There has been a repeated concern that the Park Service has not had the benefit of impartial analysis. It appears that at each stage the Park Service has principally relied upon summary conclusions made by the very Park
Service employees who are the proponents of the proposal. Please note that the Park Service employee who was the "chief architect" of the proposal was formerly in the leadership of the local Native Plant Society and that the primary issue of the closure controversy is whether the traditional park uses should be sacrificed in order to convert the area into exclusively a native plant zone.

The only truly impartial review of the local park Service employee activity came from the Federal Court Judge, who commented: "That record shows the lengths to which the closure architects went in suppressing input." Ft.
Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp 2d 1021, 1035 (2000). As the natural bias of a proponent of a proposal might tend to interfere with the quality of the objective analysis of the public interest, please insure that
review of the closure decision is not exclusively dependent on the analysis of those who previously sought to push the closure through without proper analysis.

In the last few days, the local Park Service employees have installed new signs which preclude all off leash dog walking at Fort Funston. Dog walking is by far the predominant recreation use of Fort Funston. I enclose
a copy of a self explanatory letter I sent to Superintendent O'Neill regarding the conduct of the Park Service in unilaterally changing that long standing policy of allowing off leash dog walking recreation at certain locations. It is my hope that the local Park Service employees can enter a new period of in fact engaging in true cooperative communication with the public to work out conflicts over resource use. That would be a great improvement over the current circumstances – conduct that appears to many to be a pattern of self serving pronouncements of cooperativeness and attentiveness, but such statements being belied by repeated acts of aggressively subverting the public input process.

Meanwhile, regarding Fort Funston the Park Service continues:

* to fail to respond to the numerous requests for reconsideration and explanation of the basis for the perceived mistaken decision;

* to fail to respond to the specific public comments on the proposal;

* to shut off the traditional disabled access,

* to engage in actions that may continue to harm the local bird colony which the Park Service claims it is protecting;

* to refuse to engage in ordinary environmental protection analysis or even to recognize much less consider the objections to the believed shoddy scientific method used by the Park Service;

* to withhold the Park Service data and documents that would be useful to any such fair analysis;

* to close off large recreation areas under the pretext of protecting the bird colony while in fact doing so for the purpose of an agenda to convert such recreation areas into an off limits native plant re-vegetation zone;

* to go to great ends to avoid public comment on the larger issue of the overall campaign of conversion of the recreation areas into off limits zones;

* to fail to consider the statutory requirements of acting consistent with the enabling statute for the recreation area while instead promoting a statutory interpretation that all areas must be uniformly managed; and

* to pursue an aggressive one sided (and many believe repeatedly inaccurate) press campaign supporting the local Park Service agenda to eliminate disfavored recreation uses.

Please have your staff advise whether you will order some sort of further agency review of these concerns. Thank you.

Sincerely,

John B. Keating

February 15, 2001

The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Park Access Closure At the Fort Funston Portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area 66 Fed. Reg. 3 (1/4/01)

Dear Ms. Norton:

Yesterday, the people were fenced out of a favorite recreational area of the Fort Funston portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

I understand that the Department of Interior has committed to further rulemaking in the future as to the permanent park changes involved in this closure, regardless of the fact that the temporary closure is proceeding at this time. We ask for written verification that the permanent changes to the park will indeed be a subject of further rulemaking.

Many members of the public believe that the closure is bad public policy, and is a product of lack of candor and deliberate efforts to avoid reasonable scientific analysis. The decision to convert this recreation area into an off limits zone has such impact on the quality of life of so many that the City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution demanding that the Park Service delay implementation of the closure until full analysis of the impact of the closure could be made.

The land at issue had previously belonged to the City of San Francisco but was given by the City for inclusion in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. That gift was pursuant to promises that the traditional open space recreation use of the land would continue. The Park Service now closes the area for purposes of converting it into an off limits zone for creation of a new "native plant" garden. The Park Service has been repeatedly closing off more and more of the beach and bluff access areas in San Francisco for such purposes. The City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors had previously found that the conduct was so unreasonable as to warrant inquiry as to whether the City could seek reversion of the land based on the Park Service's breach of the promises as to how the former city park land would be used after transfer.

In addition to the highly controversial long term plan to create an additional off limits native plant zone, the Park Service also states it needs to close the area to protect a local bird colony. However, any such resource protection interest could be temporarily protected by less restrictive interim measures while more carefully considering the overall plan to permanently convert this prized recreational area into a native plant garden. For example, the Park Service could simply temporarily close the area during the bank swallow nesting season this year, but defer plowing forward with the permanent changes until completing the environmental analysis and full consideration of the impact of the overall policy of changing the nature of the park.

Some argue that the closure may in fact harm threatened wildlife, and that the Park Service is using the pretext of assisting a bird colony to excuse an otherwise improper effort to restrict recreational use in violation of the unique recreation mandate of the enabling statute, all the time refusing to look at the evidence and analysis as to the environmental impact of the park conversion plans.

Sincerely,

John B. Keating
March 21, 2001:
NEWS RELEASE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ANNOUNCES PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON DOGWALKING REGULATIONS


Contact:		 Chris Powell (415) 561-4732
Roger Scott (415)  561-4731

Acting on a January recommendation from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) Citizens Advisory Commission, the National Park Service (NPS) announced today it will take a leadership role in involving the public in a review of dog leash policies in the GGNRA. The process, called Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), has been successfully used to resolve controversies in other agencies. Once our research identified the ANPR option, we sought and received endorsement by NPS headquarters in Washington for its use in the GGNRA.

The ANPR, though detailed, basically outlines different avenues that can be used by the NPS and the public to identify and address controversial park issues. The process involves several steps: publicizing an ANPR, collecting public input through a Federal Register Notice, evaluating that input and determining if there is a need to revise the present regulation requiring dogs on leash. If the need for a revised regulation is established, the park will then engage in a rulemaking process beginning with a notice in the Federal Register of proposed rulemaking seeking further public comment.

"There is a real need for this process," said GGNRA Superintendent Brian O’Neill. "The dogwalking issue has caused heated debate in the Bay Area as well as growing visitor use conflicts in national, state and local parks. The ANPR is a creative opportunity for us to take the lead, bring all the ideas to the table and find a solution that is acceptable to the public at large and consistent with the Park Service mission."

O’Neill said he and local NPS staff will immediately begin taking the next step of providing ANPR briefings to interested groups including the Bay Area Congressional delegation, state and local government officials, the GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission, and dogwalking, environmental and other interest groups. "We want the word out that there is a solution-oriented process and someone willing to lead it," O’Neill explained.

O’Neill stressed that the local NPS office is not taking a position on what, if any, revision should be made in the existing dogwalking regulation. "That’s for the process to decide," he said. "The ANPR process is a clean slate. It allows us to put conflict behind us, invite everyone to the table and open-mindedly pursue a long-term solution. Let us prove we are the region that knows how."


SECOND RELEASE AND ANNOUNCEMENT:

The National Park Service announced today that it would prepare an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning dog management in the Golden Gate National Parks. The Advanced Notice, which could lead to adoption of new regulations, will solicit public comment on a range of potential management options for accommodating appropriate dog walking in the Golden Gate National Parks, consistent with protecting national park resources and assuring visitor safety. Recognizing the regional nature of the issues, the National Park Service looks forward to working with local partners to develop a park approach that would fit into a regional solution. Several recent events in the region have underscored the need for undertaking this public process, including litigation concerning the Fort Funston area of the park, public concern about visitor and pet safety, park resource management issues involving wildlife and vegetation protection, and the review of dog-walking issues by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission. These events has also prompted the National Park Service to review the currently
applicable laws and regulations governing dog-walking in the Golden Gate National Parks. Current National Park Service regulations (36 C. F. R. #2.15) require dogs to be on leash in any area of the National Park System where dogs are permitted. The National Park Service will increase education efforts about the existing regulation and focus enforcement on visitor safety and resource protection while concurrently seeking the public’s input during the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process.


STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THE ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PROCESS

Environmental Groups:

National Parks and Conservation Association
Sierra Club – Bay Chapter (SF Group)
Marin Audubon
Golden Gate Audubon
California Native Plant Society
Marine Mammal Center
Habitat Restoration Support Group
Center for Biological Diversity

Dog Walking Groups:

San Francisco SPCA
Fort Funston Dogwalkers
SFDOG
Crissy Field Dog Group
Marin Humane Society
Pets are Wonderful Suppor (PAWS)

Congressional Offices:

Office of Congresswoman Pelosi
Office of Senator Boxer
Office of Congressman Lantos
Office of Congresswoman Woolsey
Office of Senator Feinstein




S.F. Supervisor Leland Yee Calls for GGNRA to Consult with City or Face Reversion Fight:

3/19/01

INTRODUCTION FORM
By a member of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor
Time Stamp or
Meeting Date
I hereby submit the following item for introduction:
_____ 1. For reference to Committee: An ordinance, resolution, motion, or charter amendment.
_____ 2. Request for next printed agenda without reference to Committee
_____ 3. Request for Committee hearing on a subject matter.
_____ 4. Request for letter beginning “Supervisor _____ inquires…”.
___X_ 5. City Attorney request.
_____ 6. Call file from Committee.
_____ 7. Budget Analyst request (by motion).
_____ 8. Legislative Analyst request.

Sponsor(s): Supervisor Leland Yee
SUBJECT: GGNRA 1975 Operating Agreement
The text is listed below or attached:
This request is for the City Attorney to amend the April 29, 1975 Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The request is also for the City Attorney to negotiate the amendment with the National Park Service.

The 1975 Agreement established the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and contains the responsibilities of the GGNRA in administering oversight of the land. Although the operating responsibilities are clear to the City, there seems to be disagreement as to some of the responsibilities on the part of the GGNRA. The amendment should specify that the GGNRA must consult the City in the areas of planning, land use planning and regulation of recreational use. The City should be consulted about any changes on the land or changes in use on the land. The language should also reflect that changes include fence construction, closing off any portions of the land to any kind of recreational use, any changes on the allowance or disallowance of any sort of recreational use, and any changes in policy which affect San Franciscans who use the land for recreation.

The amending language should expand notification to include the Board of Supervisors and reflect that consultation should occur at the earliest possible stage in the planning process and should allow for the City to hold an appropriately noticed public hearing if necessary.

Failure of the GGNRA to reach agreement on this issue will result in the City initiating an action seeking reversion of the property to City.

Leland_Yee@ci.sf.ca.us

 

Thanks for all the good times -- and treats!

We'll All Miss You, Joe!

Joe Seitz passed away on Monday, March 5. Joe didn't have a dog... he had scores of them! He used to sit on the bench halfway along what is now the sandy, inaccessible Sunset Trail. More recently and in failing health, Joe sat on the first of the two facing benches at the very start of the main trail from the parking lot at Fort Funston.

With a gorgeous view out to sea, Joe would visit with dogs and people alike. He'd pass the time with humans, and pass the treats (the good stuff!) to his many canine admirers. Rudy always managed to get a second helping before I had to drag him away for his walk!

I think of Joe when I hear the claim that people are afraid to come to Fort Funston because of the dogs. Joe and many others without dogs come to Fort Funston specifically because they enjoy all the friendly, happy dogs at what's known as Dog Heaven. As our own dogs age and pass on, we can imagine them entering the pearly gates with Joe there to welcome them with a treat.

We're all going to miss Joe very dearly, and send our love and good thoughts to his wife, Doris, who is recuperating from a bad fall.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor
March 7, 2001




National Park Service employees in late February 2001 installed new fences around the two-payback-acres; payback because the Park Service decided they "needed" to also close these two acres, only after they'd lost in federal court over their illegal closure of ten acres (in background). Now will the iceplant be ripped out as "non-native", causing huge sandstorms to blow in the faces of people walking along the road? These two acres are nowhere near the bank swallow cliff burrows, this is merely the latest Closure Creep Land Grab, in which parcels of land are taken out of recreational use one-by-one so that the overall mandate of the GGNRA to "provide for needed urban recreation" is violated piecemeal without any public input on such a huge policy change. Sadly, the Park Service uses unproven claims of protecting the environment as a cover for these actions.

Remember, though: the Park Service employees erecting fences aren't the ones who made these decisions, so be respectful. Write their boss's boss's new boss, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and urge her to take a close look at how the GGNRA management has ignored the will of the entire San Francisco Board of Supervisors and thousands of park users, fencing us out of our own park for no valid reason..


With this field closed, beachgoers will all be forced down one narrow, fenced-in "Beach Access" chute.


Judge Dismisses Fort Funston Case ... City Actions & New Park Users' Lawsuit Ahead

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup on Thursday, February 22, 2001 dismissed the year-old lawsuit against the National Park Service over closure of a section of Fort Funston. The suit succeeded in forcing the Park Service to comply with its own regulations for public notice and comment before making highly controversial changes. Yet, in spite of over a thousand written comments opposing the closure plan and no proof that it is needed, the Park Service recently sealed off a ten-acre parcel, with another two-acres slated for closure soon.

The suit's original complaint, which was never amended, dealt only with the specific procedural question of how the closure was handled. Internal Park Service e-mail uncovered in the case's discovery phase showed, as Judge Alsup put it in his ruling last April, "an intent on the part of the National Park Service to railroad through the closure, to maintain secrecy, to unleash the fencing with lightning speed, and to establish a fait accompli." The judge ordered a preliminary injunction last May 16th forcing the Park Service to open the illegally closed area and then go through the established notice-and-comment procedure if it still wanted to close the area.

In fact, the Park Service appears to have, as a direct result of being sued, decided to crack down on off-leash dogs throughout the entire GGNRA, of which Fort Funston is but one unit. Such retaliation against citizens for holding a federal agency accountable to follow the law is chilling. Threatening to rescind a sensible and balanced 1979 Pet Policy at its Jan. 23rd meeting this year, the GGNRA's Advisory Commission locked out hundreds of an overflow crowd of a thousand people and heard almost all of San Francisco's Supervisors object to banning off-leash dogs. The matter was then put on hold for 120 days for "stakeholder meetings" but a month later with little done, many people have begun questioning the sincerity of this tactic. The Advisory Commission canceled its regular meeting this month and will meet next at 7:30 p.m. in Building 201 at Fort Mason, Bay & Franklin Streets, San Francisco.

Now, the City of San Francisco itself may pursue various means to address the Park Service's violation of an agreement to continue recreational use at Fort Funston after the park was given to the federal government in the 1970's, and for failure to consult with the City regarding planned changes at the Fort.

Further, a new lawsuit by a variety of recreational users of Fort Funston is being launched. Although it was dog walking park users who were left out of the loop, in the end everyone has been locked out of more and more sections of the park. Disabled visitors in particular were barred last year from their beloved Sunset Trail when the Park Service abruptly tore up California's first wheelchair-accessible coastal trail. The GGNRA was established to provide recreational opportunities, yet the GGNRA's management has been steadily eroding that use in favor of untested and undiscussed "native plant" theories lacking an overall environmental plan. A new, broader lawsuit could address some of these important issues.

Yet more challenges lie ahead for the National Park Service (NPS) if it continues to ignore the hue and cry of thousands of citizens and unanimous condemnation from San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. As a unit of the Interior Department, NPS actions are subject to review by Gale Norton, the new Secretary of the Interior. Ms. Norton has repeatedly said that she favors working cooperatively with local government and citizens. That new approach would be a breath of fresh air as sweet as the ocean breezes we may yet again enjoy near the bluffs of Fort Funston.

- Michael B. Goldstein, Editor


Letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton

by Carol Copsey

Via E-mail: Gale_Norton@ios.doi.gov
The Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
U. S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20240

                   Feb. 22, 2001

Dear Secretary Norton:

I write to express concern over recent park closures in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Before that topic, please allow my congratulations on your recent appointment as Secretary of the Interior. I am very heartened by the number of women President Bush has selected for his cabinet, and was particularly pleased about your appointment. I am happy that you sit at the policy table, and are both pro-choice and a role model for women and girls.

Please meet with local organizations that are united against GGNRA park closures, investigate GGNRA's failure to coordinate with local leadership, and halt the National Park Service's unilateral park closures and prohibitions of recreational use. Much of GGNRA property historically belonged to San Francisco and was given to the National Park Service (NPS) in exchange for the promise that recreation would not be limited. Both San Franciscans and visitors have enjoyed a wide range of recreational uses in GGNRA for many years.

Purportedly to preserve wildlife and native plants, NPS has now built ugly fences and closed areas to keep people out. NPS is now denying access to all recreational users in Fort Funston, one of the former San Francisco city parks that was given to NPS and is now part of GGNRA. Hikers, joggers, hang gliders, picnickers, children, people with dogs, tourists and photographers are now excluded entirely.

GGNRA is in a dense urban environment that has become further congested in the fifteen years that I have lived in San Francisco. Given its setting, the longstanding public use and historical cooperation between NPS and San Francisco, GGNRA should serve urban recreational needs. In unanimous resolutions, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has now asked NPS to cooperate with local agencies to preserve recreational use in GGNRA.

A GGNRA Advisory Committee held a meeting in January, 2001 to consider some of the recreational use of the property. I was one of the many hundreds who attended, but, as has been the case in numerous other ways on prior occasions, GGNRA did not permit our participation in purportedly public hearing proceedings. I rather stood outside the building in the rain during the meeting. I understand that the Advisory Committee recommended that all interested parties meet to come to agreement on the recreational uses of GGNRA.

Recent GGNRA public statements engender the unmistakable sense that GGNRA will not in good faith fulfill its promises to both coordinate with local agencies and maintain recreational use. GGNRA is publicizing false and misleading facts that are betraying any spirit of cooperation or perception of due process. That GGNRA has permitted or encouraged such publicity fosters the perception among many residents that it is acting in bad faith.

GGNRA's attitude is offensive to me as a citizen, to the elected representatives of San Francisco, and to state and local leaders who have asked for cooperation. It is consistent with your philosophy that NPS involve local government, which is closer to the people here in the Bay Area than any federal agency. I am very passionate about this, so I very much look forward to your involvement. Thank You.

Carol Copsey

 

Lydia Boesch's Letter to SF City Attorney Louise Renne
Correspondence between GGNRA & City of San Francisco (City Attorney & Supervisors)
Excerpts From Interior Secretary Gale Norton's Confirmation Hearings:
"We plan to return scientists to our parks...", and, "... I am firmly committed to a process of consultation and collaboration. We should listen to all voices and involve all citizens. That is fair. It is also wise. People are a magnificent resource for ideas, for knowledge, for insights. I've lived and worked here in Washington. I have also lived and worked in the great American West. Those of us here in Washington need to be good partners with Americans living in other parts of this country and in our territories. America is a stronger nation because of the diversity of its people. These people hold many different views and perspectives. We need to work with them, to involve them, to benefit from their creativity and their capacity to innovate."    (emphasis added)

Gates Locked to Fort Funston Closure Area in February

  
Breaking the news to Macarthur, whose owner has been walking in the now-closed area for fifteen years.

JUDGE LIFTS INJUNCTION,
ALLOWING FORT FUNSTON AREA CLOSURE:

FILED
01 FEB 13 AM 11:49
RICHARD W. WIENING
 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C 00-00877 WHA

FT. FUNSTON DOG WALKERS, a
membership organization; SFDOG, a California limited partnership; LINDA MCKAY, an individual; FLORENCE SARRETT, an
individual; LINDSAY KEFAUVER; an individual; and MARION CARDINAL, an individual,

 Plaintiffs,

V.

ORDER VACATING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(GRANTING MOTION AND
APPLICATION TO VACATE)

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior;
ROBERT STANTON, Director of the National
Park Service; JOHN REYNOLDS, Regional
Director, Pacific West Region, National Park
Service; and BRIAN O'NEILL, General
Superintendent of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY,

Intervener/Defendant.

____________________________________/

       It appears from the present record that the defendants have now remedied the violation of 36 C.F.R. 1.5(b) that led to the preliminary injunction last April 25, 2000. Defendants have held public hearings after notice and comment and allowed for public input and debate, all before issuing a new and final closure plan for Fort Funston in January 2001. The original complaint and original flaw in the administrative process have been cured, fully.
        In opposition to the application and motion to vacate, plaintiffs allude to new theories and fresh violations of law. None is properly before the Court. Despite conferences in which the subject of possible amendments was discussed, plaintiffs have utterly failed to amend their pleadings or to advance, even if an amendment were before the Court. any cognizable basis for setting aside the new agency action taken in response to the procedural criticism originally leveled by plaintiffs themselves. In short, plaintiffs wanted public hearings and comment. They got it. The agency resolved the public policy debate. Plaintiffs may dislike the substantive result, but the procedural infirmity was cured.
       Plaintiffs argue that the new agency action is based on bad science concerning the best way to protect the bank swallows when they are seasonally at home in the Funston cliffs. Perhaps. Perhaps not, That is exactly the kind of judgment call Congress delegated to the park professionals. No showing has been made that the agency's judgment and balance of competing use demands was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-06, and/or unsupported by an administrative record, a record not even before the Court. So too with issues of safety and re-vegetation assigned by plaintiffs as substantive error. As for the new allegations of procedural error (e.g., late release of environmental data and failure to complete an environmental impact statement), they are brand new charges. They are not what led to the preliminary injunction in the first place. They were not pled in the complaint. If plaintiffs wish to file a new lawsuit and to prove up new impoprieties, they are free to do so. The new accusations cannot, however, be used to prolong an injunction premised on a wrong since cured.
       Finally, plaintiffs argue that the new action is subject to a sixty-day stay pending administration review issued by our new president for all pending regulations. There is an outside chance that the