cohen: were your concerns addressed? how did they end to them? candidate knowledge them? -- did they acknowledge them? >> yes. we share borders on a variety of properties. the question for the city now becomes the process by which it concerns our address. i can let the superintendent answer that question, but he is pretty clear about the concerns of our department. supervisor cohen: i was curious to know if you had an opportunity to sit down with rec and park to discuss the addressing of their concerns.

>> we spoke to the city park and direct manager. most recently, when the plan was about to be released, we walk themand we did talk about the concern that they raise about the potential impact. we don't have a lot of data. nor do they. it is somewhat speculative as well. we were willing to work with the city to try and sort that out. we are putting them in different places. some of their dog parks are underutilized.

i don't know if that is true, but it seems like there is flexibility there. it seems that the city has rules in place that we are trying to do ourselves. it seems awkward that we are being asked not to enforce rules that we have in other national parks and the city has the same rules. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor wiener: in terms of the issues that have been discussed, are they in agreement with those or is it an ongoing discussion? >> hi would say it is an ongoing discussion. the idea of the commercial dog walkers, the number of permits

and the dogs that we might have, it makes sense that they will do something jointly. they continue to maintain that if this plan is implemented, there will be impacts on city parks. supervisor mar: i was going to ask you, that looks likel the ggnra plan would eliminate off- leash dog areas in land's end and baker beach. it impacts a small partof my dist -- part of my district and the presidio. i am looking at the recreation and park off-leash areas of the city.

i know that they say we have 30 off-leash dog parks. we have more than boston, denver, sacramento combined. there are very few off-leash dog areas in the western part of the city decides the areas that you mentioned. there is only a couple on the western edge. there seems to be one in the northwestern edge. what do you think will be the impact on those areas to eliminate those areas? >> that is probably the most significant area of concern. the dog training area could be

heavily impacted. the one thing that is worth noting is from an environmental perspective if users can no longer walk two locations near their house -- to locations near their house. mclarran park has one of the largest off-leash dog areas in our system. there is also an environmental impact if people are driving there. supervisor mar: next we will hear from the director of animal care and control. >> i am the director of san francisco animal care and control.

you will hear an great deal of testimony to data what might be lacking in the draft but the management environmental impact statement. you will hear more about the prospective impact of users, but i will take this opportunity to address this plan as it relates to animal welfare. we also provide rescue and facilitate wildlife rehabilitation for sick, injured, and orphaned animals. we are an advocate for dogs as well as for other animal welfare issues. the dog management plan notes that the plan is designed to ensure the protnatural, cultural

resources. they share our concerns about the impact on native wildlife. the issue has come forward to the board of supervisors as a matter of choosing the site of dogs or that of natural resources. this is not viewed as an either or situation. we share concerns about wildlife and economic impact. it did not clearly demonstrate that the presence of off leash dog is the sole or primary cause of damage to native species. the mere fact of off-leash dog as being present does not lead to an automatic conclusion that they have the impact of an area that is also frequented by people without jobs or by people with dogs on leash, horses, hangliders, atv's or other predatory wildlife.

the enforcement that could ultimately lead to an outright ban and does not contemplate the bay area. the preferred alternative is overly restrictive given that the national park service's are educating users about what is required for coexistence. most of that has been done by a dog organizations. it seems that the national park service does not consider various options prior to the implementing restrictions. they could implement an adaptive management plan that includes fencing in the enforcement of laws or rules, licensing laws, or parent adoptions. we met with the superintendent

and director of communications to discuss our concerns. we share their concerns about visitor and employee safety. we live like to work with them on solutions that would allow for more flexibility and coming up with a plan to address the need of residents in both human and nonhuman. up to this point, they have not been receptive to compromises. peaceful coexistence requires understanding in the movement from both sides. it is the only way that a city like san francisco concede solutions to our challenges. without a firm commitment to consider the concerns of san francisco stakeholders, i feel compelled to oppose the dog management plan that dramatically changes the nature of the current and intended use. i am available for questions as

well. supervisor mar: thank you very much. we also have representatives from the port of san francisco. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am environmental manager in the development division. i came today to be here in case there were any questions specific to open spaces. i would like to offer him some information that because of the nature and location of parks and open spaces, most of them are not significantly used by off- leash dog or by a on-leashed dogs. there are two exceptions. there is more use of those

areas by dog owners. of those, only those on the southern waterfront just adjacent to the former hunters point power plant, it is governed by a policy prohibiting all off-leash dog use. with expansion of the park and construction of improvements, we are going to be constructing a dog play area just outside of the current boundaries. as i mentioned, our parks and open spaces tend to not be close to sensitive habitats. the park is a significant exception to that. we struggle with enforcement of the leash policy.

supervisor wiener: next we will hear from the golden gate audubon society. >> i am the conservation director. i am here to speak on behalf of several members of our coalition. i want to start by providing a little bit of perspective about where we are coming at this issue. people have asked for more regulation in dog management and are characterized as anti-god. our members care about their welfare. these are people that dedicate significant portions of their time in order to make the world

a safer place for animals and habitats. and also, when we are coming at this, someone asked if there were direct impact. the reports that we have on those are fairly anecdotal. they probably could provide an example of those where it mauled a bird's head. no one saw it. they draped it over the sign that said "wildlife protection area. this is the kind of environment that i am dealing with. this is the scion who at ocean beach -- sign at ocean beach.

someone put bags of dog feces. the majority of dog owners do not behave this way. but there are signs and a fence. they continue to walk their dogs of leash even though there is a sign warning them to do so. we are working in an environment where the habitats are treated like disposable goods. especially when their protection is an inconvenience to us. many of these species are in significant declines. we know that the ggnra is an important area. it protect more federally and listed species than any other park in the area.

we also know that once these species are gone, they are usually gone for good. dogs in san francisco have on earth that love and care for them. wildlife are under the guardianship of all of us. even though we don't take them home or give them names, we believe that they still deserved the integrity of their life. they should be able to live without harassment or disturbance. current dog management status quo is inhumane and is not sustainable from a management point of view, the parks service, and it is not fair to the committee. this brings me to specific points i want to make about the dog management plan in general. it does not go far i enough to protect wildlife, their habitats, and other park users. this is also not just about

birds or certain plants. it is about the experience of other park users. they find their experience negatively affected by off-leash dog. we believe that the areas are inadequate. they should be fenced and well marked. we have noticed for example where the area is not well enclosed, noncompliance has a lot more dogs outside then there are when they are fenced. we also think that the plan probably underestimates the impact that dog related impact will have on the ecosystem and other park users. we received many reports from our members and committee members about how dog related recreation has stopped them from places. many have reported being charged or bitten.

in the packet that i gave you, was a petition written in 2005 asking for these regulations. in that, you will find an example of the documented instances of dogs biting people or negative interactions with the dogs and people in the park. this is a real problem and should not be swept under the rug. despite its flaws, we believe the proposed plan is a significant first step towards making the park more manageable at a sustainable way. the park is there not only for our generation, but for future generations. this is something that the biologists have decided that they need to come up with a management role to make them sustainable. it is a very comprehensive eis.

it could be improved. but i would encourage the supervisors to read it independently and the oldest listen to my talking points. provide an independent review of its and look at related studies. ask yourself and everyone else hard questions about your conclusions so that you can come up with a good policy before you pass any resolution. it was drafted before any hearing on this matter. it does not seem like adequate fact-finding occurred. i would like to point out some of the examples. some of the problems that we have with the resolution, this comes to impact about parks and the city. the plan does not eliminate job- related recreation.

in most places, dogs will be prohibited or it will be on- leash in a paved area or a park. they will be able to go to all but one trail. in the 75% requirement is too low. and we know that noncompliance and breeds more noncompliance and that is not acceptable. we want a more persistent environment. we also know that there has to be some degree of accountability and self regulation within the community itself. this has been an ongoing problem, but we have not seen in compliance either within ggnra

or any self regulation. we don't see any evidence that the plan will lead to more behavioral problems with dogs. this is a very legitimate concern. we understand that. it allows for very large off- leash areas and we have at least 28 if not more off-leash areas with more being planned. those provide the responsible dog owners will have adequate opportunity to socialize and exercise their dogs. if this plan is not enough, and there is so much more than any other city, we have to ask how much is enough? finally, we don't see any evidence of the parks being impacted by the policy. dogs are welcome in the city

parks or recreation is tolerated despite being in to the law. of what to say one last thing about recreation whether it is the national park or however you want to turn that. what the park service must do is decide what is appropriate recreation and what is not. and what are appropriate levels there? that is no longer the case because it is an inappropriate use. we all accept certain restrictions in order to protect the common good. there is inappropriate regulation of recreational opportunities. those are all of the comments i have now. i would encourage the supervisors to do a thorough study before passing any resolution.

supervisor mar: i think sally stephens has a posting from january where she is questioning the data on the dangers of the clovers. she cites a 2006 study and a no vember 2006 report. even though the reports to acknowledge that there is not a danger or the data theire, i was wondering if you could respond to that. >> it is interpretation of the data that is out there. if you look at some of the studies provided in this, if you ask the park biologists are people that have studied this,

they will tell you that off- leash dog have been recognized as a persistent threat. there is a quote, i'm sorry i don't have it handy. it is about recognizing that off-leash dog are one of the primary sources of disturbance and risk for snowy clovers. they one time nestedt here -- nested there, but don't now because of the recreational use. supervisor wiener: we have two more informational speakers. i want to invite ken wiener, no relation. [laughter] he spells it wrong, too. [laughter] he came down from seattle and is

the founding chair of the environmental land use and national resources practice. he is the former deputy director of the white house council on environmental quality and will talk to us. >> thank you. i represent a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting responsible dog ownership. they participate with other community and recreational groups and environmental stewardship. many of our members are members that enjoyggnra -- enjoy ggnra now.

our remarks are to try to be polarized issues and preserve the mission to preserve national and recreational values for current and future generations. we would like to dollars the effort that ggnra has put into this. these are difficult public lands management issues. we think the cities can help guide us. you all the san francisco's charter. it is to improve the quality of urban life. it was born of a symbol of geological promise that open space is vital to the metropolitan area. that is an essential quality of our urban design. it was established in 1972 to meet the recognize the needs of urban recreation.

the san francisco metropolitan area was growing. the park service will tell you that it has to manage all units of the national park system home to protect natural resources. it is also accurate that it has to manage each unit consistently with a congressional charter for that unit. president nixon's message to congress stated that this proposal will encompass a number of existing parks, military reservations, and private lands to provide a full range of recreational experiences. when people site legislative history, i go back to our original sources. what i was working on the environmental message program, i happened upon a copy of the original transmittal of the

proposal for the golden gate national area legislation. this is from about 40 years ago. in that transmittal, the secretary of the interior explained that while state in local governments have provided some open space, the potential for park and recreational development of a much greater increase should be realized in order to meet the demonstrated need for recreation space. and a variety of outdoor recreation uses. i point this out because someone told you that the local parks are enough. clearly, that was not part of the original proposal and intent for ggnra. identifying needs and noting that the south side is heavily

used urban park land including marine green. and the intent was stated in the bill reports for the legislation that ggnra will ensure it's continuity of open space for the enjoyment of present and future generations of city dwellers. a dog walking was recognized as part of use and enjoyment. the senate and house reports of both commented that proposed area, for people to walk their dogs or i italy watch the action along the bay, the official legislative history will capitalize on the availability of this important can't equal resources in the san francisco region by establishing a new national urban recreation area

to serve the outdoor need that will concentrate on serving the outdoor recreational needs of the people of the metropolitan area. it must relate to the desires and interests of the people. it must be managed in a manner that will be protected for future generations. these were also the city's understandings. as you know, there is a mission statement that it is the preservation unimpaired of the natural and cultural resources of the park for present and future generations to enjoy. that is all we ask. looking at alternatives, i would like to make a couple of observations to share with you our conclusion that the draft does not provide a solid technical basis for dismissing the action alternative