The Fight for Truth
Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Struggle for Off-Leash Rights in the GGNRA

by Sandy Lurins

In the March, 2007 issue of FETCH our cover story (“Off Leash Tug of War”) by Kris Larson presented positions held by groups and individuals in the ongoing debate about off-leash recreation in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). This issue is one that brings out deep passions in those who are involved. While there are some “sides” of the issue that seem obvious on the surface (some may erroneously reduce this issue to “off leash dog people vs. environmentalists”) there is much more to know. And the whole thing is confounded by the fact that the participants of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee are not allowed to speak to the press, which might help all of us better understand the nuances of this complicated issue.

In the wake of our article, we got several letters from off-leash advocates who felt that we did not publish the true facts of the matter. And more critically, that by not challenging some of the assertions made by the off-leash opponents, FETCH fell short of its responsibilities, and in fact, hurt the off-leash cause.  Steven Golub, director of Ocean Beach Dog, wrote “If the media is not doing their job and holding the accusers to the facts/truth/science, they become the enabler -- the ones promulgating this injustice.”

Golub and many others are frustrated with the couching of the off-leash issue as part of the hot button issue of environmental protection. After all, we in the Bay Area are proud of our environmental awareness and activism, right? We all care about recycling, global warming, and protection of endangered species. But what if, as Golub writes,

…It has been almost impossible to get the truth on the issues (i.e., 1979 Pet Policy, emergency closures, Negotiated Rulemaking, reversion) out to the public because of a strong media bias which is afraid to challenge the radical environmentalism displayed by Brent Plater [and the Center for Biological Diversity], the GGNRA, the Audubon Society, the Calif. Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, etc. with respect to off-leash recreation within approximately 1/2 of one percent of the GGNRA as codified by the 1979 GGNRA Pet Policy… Those that designate something as "anti-environment" damn well know that statement's far-reaching prejudice and its power. I suggest that this is analogous to "playing the race card,” a technique which has been used effectively by various special interest groups in order to terminate important public debates…. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, the public is cheated out of a fair debate on the subject matter. The side making the racist accusation ends up the winner by default.

The frustration of the off-leash advocates mounts even higher because some of the recent “emergency closings” turn back historical agreements for the use of the public lands. As the human and canine populations of the city depend on these lands for many shared uses, prime among them space to exercise, this turn of events is unacceptable to Golub:

As you may know, the 1979 GGNRA Pet Policy was arrived at through a process of compromise and consensus amongst the GGNRA, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and other stakeholders in an attempt to honor the enabling legislation of the GGNRA, as well as to balance the needs/requirements of the park's natural resources with the health and well-being of our best friends. I am confident that at this point you are familiar with S.F. Public Health Ordinance Article I; Section 41.12; Item 5; which states all dogs must be provided with adequate exercise. "Adequate exercise"