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. 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 of the superintendent was deficient. as far as the arguments of the people with half leashed dog or recreation, i think it epitomizes the view of the testimony of the representative from the audubon society that said it might or might not have been killed by the doghous, it t or might not have teeth marks on

it. that is a good reason >> thank you. one quick thing i wanted to know. this has been an amazing turnout. our plan -- the second part of this hearing has been about the resolution of commercial dog-walkers. after this meeting we wanted to go back and approach this subject. we probably have another half-hour to an hour of this aspect of the hearing, so i don't think we're going to have time to do that today because we're going to lose a quorum. so what we'll do is finish all the public comment on ggnra. if there's anyone here -- we'll continue the remainder of the hearing and have public comment at a subsequent hearing on that. if there's anyone here today who wants to talk about regulation of commercial dog-walkers, please do so. but we will have the actual

hearing on that later, and you'll have another opportunity, if you so choose. but i don't want to make people have to come back, and we'll be happy to hear any input on that. so our next speaker. >> i'm bob, and i came to suggest that this hearing is premature. and any action -- positive action, is also premature, because the outreach to departments is incomplete. it has been neglectful. it is biased. you take a look at the list of city agencies to whom this was referred. who was left out? the mayor's office on disability. why is that relevant? nobody here from any of the city departments, from any of the advocacy groups, nobody mentioned the problems for guide dogs.

and there is information in the public record that gtnra has, a file from 2005, a letter that i'm going to quote from. a significant challenge is off-leash dogs. 80% of the graduates had guide dogs interfered with by off-leash dogs. 42% have had their guide dogs attacked by off-leash dogs. we recommend that our graduates avoid any place where off-leash dogs are known to roam. it may create areas where our grads will be excluded from entering. they sought a seat on the committee several years ago to discuss whether off-leash areas are appropriate at all. the point simply is there's inadequate consultation. people are left out of this. you need to think about better communication, better input. since 19 9 laws have changed. the a.d.a.'s in effect.

we didn't hear how that's applicable to protecting a 40,000 or $50,000 investment. when a guide dog's injured, the human person also is immobilized. that's a problem you're not addressing. you're just blankets accepting that dogs are pets. dogs are comforting. but ignoring service dogs for the blind. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors, good evening. supervisor connie and supervisor wiener. thank you so much for this hearing and for this resolution. i would like to address what superintendent dean calls the compliance-based management that supervisor wiener addressed earlier in his comments. the compliance-based management is really in reality the poison pill of their preferred alternative. i'm -- i hear from

superintendent dean that they're going to use a third party to handle this. i'm very concerned about who this third party will be. you know, are they going to have surveillance cameras? are they going to have volunteers? is it going to be staff? i'm concerned about the fairness of it and i don't trust that it will be fair. regardless of which alternative will be chosen, claims of non-compliance, whether real or not, will result in automatic changes that dogs will be banned everywhere in the ggnra. we dog guardians are contributing citizens of the united states. we are now the outlaws. the national park service should be ashamed of even proposing such a scheme. as bad as the ggnra's preferred alternative is, the poison pill makes it totally unacceptable. and i think the city has every right to send a resolution

restricting what the gmp gnra can do. -- ggnra can do. and i ask you please to not let this happen. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i need to -- >> take your time. we can have other speakers go first. >> all i need to know is how i make a -- that's fine. >> hi, my name is jill, and i want to thank you for the hearing. pass the resolution and allow us our 1%, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> wow. [applause] [laughter] >> how do i make this a full screen is what i'm trying to figure out. >> >> i.t. will take care of that. and i apologize for -- >> ok.

>> there you go. >> ok. this is a slight show that andrea played a little while ago. but i wanted to point out several things. my name is lisa, by the way, and i've been organizing a lot of this. because i used to work for the national park service and i think that they're lying and i think they're pie wased. i'm sad about it, -- biased, and i'm sad about it. i want to show you a bunch of slides that are about joy. we are the people who are using the parks. who do they want to reserve it for? so kids. kids are afraid of dogs. here we are. people of color are afraid of dogs. this is what -- this is just sunday. this is sunday. any day we could have seen this. this is a family. people need places for their kids and their dogs. this is an elderly person, ok, on sunday afternoon, ok, with a cain. i keep hearing people are afraid of dogs, people with disabilities, blah, blah, blah, i think it's a lie. and that's one of the things

that i want you to pay attention to. this is a small dog group, it's a community that comes out. i don't know if it's monthly or weekly. this is all of them. these are the people who are using. who are we saving the speech for if not this public? this is a group of kids from a school. you're probably not allowed to touch this dog because i work in schools, but they probably fought for the prime position next to that dog. she says she's been walking in the ggnra for 890 years. she's obviously more than -- for 80 years. she's obviously more than 80 years old. a person with a dog. look at the expression of joy. this is mirror beach. this isn't just san francisco, this is also mon terra, mirror beach, this is a regional problem. he says i've been coming here for 40 years and never seen a problem. this is angela walker, the pro dog-walker, with her out-of-control dogs. another set of dangerous dogs

right here. this woman is getting active exercise, ok? child playing with her dog. watch this. ok? i don't know which beach that is. another -- a kid with their dog. this is what it's like. this is crissy field at the inlett. this inlet is full of kids and dogs every sunny day. elderly people. i want to point out this one. this is -- what happened to my two minutes? oh, my god. [laughter] >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hi. >> hi. >> my name is courtney. i own a dog training and dog-walking business in san francisco and i also sit on the board of friends of animal care and control here. i'm extremely concerned about the impact the ggnra plan could have on local dogs and their owners. as a trainer i can't overstate the importance of appropriate off-leash exercise for dogs to prevent behavior problems.

restricting dogs to fenced areas will create more problems. they are more likely to to be able to take a real walk.

>> thank you for coming. next speaker. .wr >> i'm a burnel heights resident. i live in david campos' district and i walk his dog. he's very fit. he's been going out with me since he was a puppy. winston and i and about five or six of our canine friends go to various san francisco parks. i have never seen an empty park. i usually walk between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. they came right after the dog walkers started taking the dogs home. to ever find an empty park in san francisco at 5:00, the dog owners start coming home from work and then they take their dogs out. it's often very crowded there. if i go to a small park, some of the enclosed dog play areas are no larger than the size of this room or possibly twice as big of this room. once you have two dog walkers

you're fine. but if the third or fourth dog walker comes in, as they will, it is chaos. there are fights, there are problems, there are parking issues. all sorts of problems develop. another park that i like to use is mclaren park. it's fabulous. it is the largest off-leash dog area in san francisco city, this area. there has been a proposed takeover of some of the only dog leash area in that park by the fress bee golf club and they are trying to overlay their golf club frisbee course on the off-leash dog area. they also have a poison pill in their rules about it, that if there is conflict, dogs will have to leave the area. put a dog and a frisbee together, that could be a conflict. another poison pill. and they have not yet gotten permission, though i have seen them already start to level some of the land, put up posts,

drop concrete and it is not permitted yet and they've started. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is fracesca. as we all know, the beach is a narrow strip of lands. when you look to the rest there's the whole rest of the world. when you look at the east you look at the homes of 800,000 people crammed into 49 square miles. yet we heard today in the first presentation that relative to national park policy, there's no real difference between yosemite and playland at the beach. if the presence of 800,000 people next to a beach is of no consequence, then i'm not surprised that we have a problem. my major use of the golden gate recreational area is to run our dog at fort funston. before we had a dog, we had a small child who is now grown up and we used to go to the beach.

and my son would get sticks with his friends and run up and down the dunes swinging his swords and yelling and hooting and hollering and having a generally good time. i know now that that was probably more damaging to the habitat than anything my dog would ever do. but if we're not going to leash the children and we're not going to leash the dogs, then probably a better solution is to identify the critical habitats and fence them off and then slay the beasts or the children. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for having this hearing today and in case i marked my card wrong, i'm a little jet-lagged, i am for the resolution. i am the proud owner, owned by a 12-year-old black lab named otis who is an in incredibly good shape for an older dog. the reason he is in the good health that he is