francisco and i am a senior. since 1989, my husband and i have walked our dogs almost every single day we did not have to work. and i suggest that you visit it yourself to judge what is going on there. i am also a longtime volunteer with the san francisco spca. i have taken my dog to hospitals, rehab units, psych wards. dogs to help heal the body and the spirits. i consider watching the dogs playing and running. my own personal animal assisted there at the open air session. if we did not have dogs, we would spend our time at home reading the new yorker instead of getting our walking. i find it ironic that the

national park service is pushing the healthy hearts healthy people program when they are cutting the 1% of the land now available. they should really be expanding the area for off-leash areas. there weren't that many people out there. i would say there is probably 20 or 40 times as many people walking. we need more space, not less. thank you. >> i am a fourth generation san franciscan. i have been at ocean beach all my life. i fished with my father.

i've played in the caves. you know, i go up to there and it is covered with concrete, it is covered with an invasive species. all of the trees are eucalyptus. it is still a wonderful, beautiful place to be. oftentimes, i take a look at the landscape and i say, let me remove everybody from the landscape that doesn't have a dog out here. a landscape is completely empty. i am wondering if that is how they wanted to be.

they are worried about the clover's being stressed. there is no proof about them being stressed. if they are so stressed, why do they ride motorcycles up and down the beach? why do they have atv's, cars, bulldozers. i don't think they are stressed any more than seagulls, pigeons, or anything else for that matter. i am not an expert. [chime] is that it? supervisor wiener: thank you. [laughter] >> i have been a san francisco resident for 19 years. about twice a week, i crossed

out and pick up trash. i have been hurt and surprised that dogs are allowed to run loose. it doesn't seem to be consistent with san francisco values. with environmental sustainability, we need to be [unintelligible] san francisco needs to be people encouraging ecological complexity and resilience. san francisco also values being -- allowing dogs to chase while the birds for no other reason is ok, and i don't know that the

message that we want to extend to our children. i was talking to a friend the other day, and he doesn't like to be where dogs are. he was really supporting her the whole idea of this. even a minority of noncompliant dogs, there are so many dogs total. i have noticed in other places, other cities with urban beaches, they have the balances [chime] >> i am taking into the gardners

position because she had to leave. -- angela gardner's position because she had to leave. ggnra says that the current situation has not been sustainable. it has been in place since 1979. we have the most beautiful place in the city. we have people from all over the world looking at the facebook page. why can't we have this in sweden or all of these other countries? one more thing. as a walker, i have to see this. we have a gigantic industry in this area and in this city that is seriously threatened by this. you're going to have hundreds of people unable to work, thousands

of dogs and able to go out anymore. it will be a big deal and all of the ways they already told you about. >> i am an auditor with over 15 years experience. i was with a major public accounting firm for the city of san francisco otic. this environmental impact study and plan is overwhelming and misleading to the public. the national park service claims that the dogs are public safety record. the actual data shows that about 1% of the public safety risks are actually related to dogs. this is in contrast to the

people that enjoy the park with their dogs on a daily basis. for the suspects of by the attack incidents, most are relatively insignificant instances, and you require medical attention. i am shocked by the deliberate delays in providing real data and citizens. i created a request and the park service quickly responded. the blaze started when i was clear that i was a strong environmentalist. it took two months and the threatene to go to court. with the ggnra law enforcement data. the hypothetical adverse impacts claimed in the report. i strongly agree with the environmentalists that we need to look at evidence but disagree

that bad policy should be the primary justification for this plan. for over 30 years, and dogs have been an integral part of our reaction. changes need to be based on facts. [chime] thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. let's talk about what life for a minute. dogs have no impact on the swallows. they claim the dogs dig at or collapse burrows and cause landslides. there is no evidence that dogs have any of these impacts. the monitors from 2000-2006 observed the dogs. that is all the evidence there

is. digging, flushing, and landslides are listed in the monitor and report as potential impact, not observed events. from potential impact, the ggnra leaps to continuing impacts. no one has seen them caused a landslide in the colony. people have been out there looking for them. a researcher closely monitored in 1994 and 1995, writing an official report. they noted that it did not disturb the swallows. it doesn't mention the dogs. speculation of what might happen with what actually does happen is not science.

i might add that the brush rabbits are still there, and of the quail are not, they are no longer at the arboretum. the fact that the cuellar gone cannot be blamed on the docks here unless science means to you what it means to the friends. >> thank you for hearing from us. i filed the freedom of information act there was a claim of controversy over the compromise a visitor plan. the response merely stated the staff report and documents ec do not exist at this time. we are not crazy.

but there is a pretty determined the outcome to remove all off- leash recreation. the director told me that i would rather give up those properties that have dogs running loose on them. the scientific studies were designed to support the predetermined outcome. the choice of the golden gate director confirms this bias. it has been on record for years. they are not designated as critical habitats by the u.s. fish and wildlife services. they are obligated only to prevent the harassment or taking of the clover within its boundaries. to justify the predetermined outcome, the study instead relies on arbitrary and inadvertent disturbances that could be as minor as the bird

lifting its head or standing out. this fails to mention the 2007 joint uc-berkeley research that it was not impacted by the recreational activities of humans and dogs. all of the scientific data is equally compromise and must be disregarded. thank you. >> my name is nancy stafford. i'm a professional dogf wal wal. there is definitely an increase in the use of parks. whenever there has been discussions over the last couple of years, i have discussed there has always been a demand for more off-leash areas and not

less. i guess you could go into an off day and not see very many dogs. they are heavily used and we need more spaces. in the evenings in the mornings, they are overcrowded. the other point i want to make is a study that was done about the clovers that studied over 5700 dogs of which only 6% actively chase the birds. of which, only 19 cases of the clovers. -- chased the clovers. 19 is not a significant impact. supervisor cohen: ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a five minute break. we will start with this

gentlemean. supervisor wiener: supervisor mar had to go. there is still a quorum here. just five minutes.

supervisor wiener: next speaker. >> thank you. >> for decades, i have been going to the local parts for hiking and relaxation. and the fact that we are about to lose it to based on environmental allegations that have not been fairly steady, proven, or reviewed. basically a 10,000 page allegation. i want to thank our supervisors for having this hearing. and it gives us a chance to adjust -- address these unjustified and draconian

restrictions. i want to thank those that are helping us, and senator diane feinstein who [unintelligible] i wanted to also draw attention to kgo and the host that did a whole program on this to publicize the cases of misuse and science. supervisor wiener: let me call the final list of people before you go. [reading names]

>> i support supervisor wiener's resolution. i have served nine years on the open space advisory committee. i care about our parks. in evaluating the rebel effects is not finished. the draft report fails to consider the san francisco is one city with multiple owners of open spaces. one owner cannot make policy changes without affecting the other owners of open spaces.

the alternative proposed by the park service for their land will unfairly impact the storage of our land by cutting more people back into the urban parks for off-leash recreation. more use of these areas means more maintenance, more maintenance means more money. the proposed restrictions are not even the end of the squeeze play. with the provision to further limit off-leash areas in an unappealable unilateral decision, these new restrictions are not being complied with to their satisfaction. they can aggressively remove permissions in the future for off-leash actions. it will be demanding the you fix this mess. i do not own a dog, but i will

be impacted. and putting more people into the urban parts for off-leash recreations. more parking problems around off-leash areas, more use means more maintenance. more maintenance means more money. he proposed restrictions are not even the end of the squeeze play. when their stealth provision to limit off-leash areas in an unappealable unilateral decision, these are not being complied with dissatisfaction. the national park service can aggressively removed permissions in the future for off-leash dog areas to exist on their land. and what you think will be the result of this continuing strife? the public will be demanding that you fix this mess.

i do not own a dog, but i will be impacted because of the increased use from all over the city looking to exercise their dogs. before the federal government is allowed to restrict, they must be made to declare what the impact will be on the city. please require a fair and honest disclosures. the park service is playing for keeps. [chime] supervisor wiener: next speaker. >> supervisor cohen, supervisor wiener, thank you for having this hearing. even from the testimony