Advocates and Adversaries Continue the Fight

Editor’s Note: Last January we covered this issue on the cover of FETCH, and now, 14 months later, all sides (for there are more than two) are still waging a battle for the future of off-leash recreation in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. San Francisco correspondent Kris Larson offers this update.

The past few years, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston have been the rope in a giant game of tug of war between environmentalists and dog owners. Environmentalists claim that off-leash dogs in these parks are threatening the habitat of the snowy plover, a small, wren-like bird that nests in both areas. Dog owners claim that the city’s dogs need these large spaces for off-leash play. Park officials recently closed both parks to off-leash dogs, and many dog owners are up in arms over the decision.

These areas of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) have been open to off - leash dogs since it was made a federal park in 1975. At that time, the federal government signed an agreement with the City of San Francisco, declaring that federal control over park lands was contingent on allowing normal recreational use. In 1979, and again in 2005, the courts ruled that off-leash play was included in that definition.

However, in September of 2006, the park service ordered an emergency closure of Ocean Beach and Fort Funston to off-leash dogs. Dogs on leash are still permitted in the areas. The GGNRA ordered the closures in an effort to protect the snowy plovers who were returning to their winter habitat in the parks.

But the snowy plovers are not the only ones with a stake in this conflict. Steve Sayad, co-founder of an off-leash group called Ocean Beach Dog, has expressed concern over the closures. Sayad says Ocean Beach and Fort Funston offer unique opportunities for off-leash play because of their location and size. “Many [dog play areas] are adjacent to busy streets [...] and the likelihood of dogs playing [...] in the streets is far too great a risk,” Sayad says. He also points out that “San Francisco has very small off-leash areas, and almost no place where a dog can adequately be run, unlike a beach.”

Snowy plovers at risk?

Though environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) claim off-leash dog play threatens the snowy plovers, many dog owners are skeptical. Some have suggested that the snowy plovers are not an endangered species at all. Both sides have cited reports which support their claims.

The CBD cites a US Geological Survey (USGS) report showing that off-leash dogs harm the snowy plover habitat. The USGS studied snowy plovers on a Santa Barbara beach, and stated that “each snowy plover was disturbed, on average, once every 27 weekend minutes and once every 43 weekday minutes. Dogs off-leash were a disproportionate source of disturbance.”

By contrast, Ocean Beach Dog has questioned whether the snowy plover is endangered. The group has cited a master’s thesis written Leah A. Gordon, under a USGS staff member’s guidance. The thesis suggests that the San Francisco’s snowy plover is genetically identical to plovers found in large quantities elsewhere in the U.S., and therefore is not an endangered species.

Is off-leash play dangerous?

For some, the danger to the snowy plovers is not the only issue. Brent Plater, spokesman for the CBD, says “there’s a growing body of evidence that if you aren’t cautious about how you practice off-leash recreation, your dogs can have bad experiences [...]. It can lead to behavior problems or put your dog at physical risk.” Plater cited GGNRA reports of dogs falling off the cliffs at Fort Funston, and suggested the possibility of increased aggression in off-leash dogs.

The SF/SPCA has asserted that off-leash play is more likely to make dogs happier and well-adjusted. And Susan Valente, a co-founder of Ocean Beach Dog, states, “We see many more injuries in dogs [...] when they exercise only on hard, paved surfaces, or on fields riddled with gopher holes. Soft sand at the beach and some swimming as an alternate form of exercise is much kinder on dog joints.”

In response to the dangers of cliff-side play, Steve Sayad has suggested that a cliff-side barrier might be more appropriate than forbidding off-leash play in the dangerous areas, a solution which would prevent possible danger to children as well as to dogs.

Rulemaking redux

Park officials have attempted to address everyone’s concerns by creating a negotiated rulemaking committee. Representatives from both sides of the conflict were invited to join park officials in creating a policy for park use.

However, the negotiated rulemaking process has been rife with conflict. In September of 2006, prompted by the return of the snowy plover to its winter home in the park, the GGNRA elected to forbid off-leash play in the contested areas. Shortly afterwards, the CBD dropped out of the negotiated rulemaking sessions in support of the decision, and stated its intention to stay out until the GGNRA enforced the rules.

SF/SPCA Chairman of the Board Richard E. Dirickson issued a press release declaring that with this move, the CBD “held the Negotiated Rulemaking process hostage until its demands were acceded to.”

Since then, the CBD has returned and negotiated rulemaking continues. The contested areas at Ocean Beach and Fort Funston remain closed to off-leash dogs during the process. Members of the Committee are not permitted to discuss the Committee’s progress with the press.

Take back attempt

Ocean Beach Dog has also agitated for reversion. Under the original agreement between the federal government and the City of San Francisco, if normal use of the park were ever changed without City approval, control of the park would revert back to the City. Ocean Beach Dog claimed that closing off-leash areas violated that agreement. They requested that the GGNRA return the parks to City control.

In order to return the parks to San Francisco’s jurisdiction, the movement must be approved by the Commission of Animal Control & Welfare, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and must be completed by an Act of Congress.

A spokesperson from the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Rose Marie Dennis, has stated there is no guarantee that off-leash dog access would be granted if reversion were successful. However, Matt Magana, a member of Ocean Beach Dog, says that’s not necessarily the point. “The resolution would have sent a very strong message to the GGNRA that they needed to stop making the arbitrary closures that they’ve been doing,” Magana says.

On February 8, the Commission of Animal Control & Welfare voted against reversion. However, the process of negotiated rulemaking continues. In the meantime, Sayad of Ocean Beach Dog has stated that the fight is by no means over. “Our next step appears to be fighting the citations in the areas recently made off-leash through the illegal emergency closures,” Sayad states. He adds that “There is also a likelihood of an action against the GGNRA for damages for violating our civil rights in closing off all these areas.”

Who has the greatest right to the beach? The snowy plovers? Off-leash dogs? Environmental groups and dog owners will continue trying to form a policy that pleases everyone. Only one thing is certain: now that reversion is no longer an option, these factions will have to find some way to work together to ensure that the park can be enjoyed as it was meant to be: by as many users, both animal and human, as possible.