mitigation measures. in thinking of this definition, ggnra but in your own charter, one of the most remarkable things is the quality of urban areas is not a significant factor in determining a dog management plan. as the land use committee, you know better than most that a good environmental design can solve many problems, including how open space parks and trails are designed. better compliance. and we hope that you encourage them to do just that.

those took a lot of organization and staff time. the staff says they are listening with an open mind, and we hope that is true. some nonideological comments, asking about how the compliance- based program would work, how it would be measured, whether it is truly an adaptive management program, where it will really involved reaching out in educating people, as was suggested by the superintendent. a separate access path to the beach for dogs and people could easily resolved a longstanding problem area and be designed to

restore native species at the same time and went into the natural environment, and people suggested areas where they could walk their dogs of liege -- often each -- leash. i often wonder why a former airfield would be, off limits. even though would be possible to protect this without compromising it. so this is not about environmental development. it is about meeting two environmental needs, and natural areas in an urban area, and the board of supervisors has not been reluctant in the past to stand up to for the needs and rights of its residents in the ggrna. some of you remember when the changes did not involve the community.

we appreciate their efforts and know it is not easy. for the quality of the city, the quality of the environment, the quality of the neighborhood, and, in short, the quality of the urban life, as it says in the san francisco charter. huckabee's q2 asked -- we ask you to asked -- ask ggrna to look at this and other resources are preserved. >> thank you. ok, and then, finally, before we ask for a response from ggrna, we will hear from sally stevens, the president of the animal welfare in san francisco. commissioner?

>> hi, thank you, yes. as he said, i am the chair of sf dog and also the chair of the animal welfare commission. what i want to say briefly with one comment is that in all of the discussion about endangered species calm there is no federally designated habitat anywhere in the ggrna, especially in san francisco. there is literally dozens of people who walk their with their dogs, and it is probably the most perverse group of park users that you would ever see. you have days, straight, every social and economic class. we are environmentalists. we enjoy being out in the open space with other dogs, as people have done for thousands of years, and we actually embodied the recently helped the parks,

help the people campaign. and yet, they want to force us out. in all the areas where doxepin walked off the leash legally, and this was determined that the policy was a legal management tool, for decades, vibrant social communities have dollars, ... as was mentioned a few minutes ago by ken wiener. even on those rare sunny days in san francisco. communities such as this are a precious resource. it should be encouraged. yet again, this plan will essentially destroy those communities. we have really only been able to walk dogs off leash on 1% of the ggrna land, and that is important to remember, and yet, they want to cut it. they're cutting more in marin.

in san mateo, there is not much. normally, you need a compelling reason, and you actually read through beat pages, there is nothing there. they are not there. it is full of insects that could happen or might happen but very little evidence that any of these potential impacts actually have occurred, and believe me, they have been looking for them, and they do not see them. if you read the eis and actually read the reports, you see that dogs have very little negative impact on the natural resources. they disturb the wildlife less than people do, and they pose no threat. there is no safety issue with regard to dogs. as was mentioned, people are involved in and caused 98% of the serious incidents that the

law-enforcement data report. dogs are only 2%. if there were huge amounts of dog bites the people portrayed, it would be in those reports, and it is not. what are the things not in there? there is no study of the impacts on the city parks. the basically say because there'll be some small area open for dogs, people will not go into the city parks, but the reality is that people will go into the city parks, because those areas will become congested, even in b - -- in the ggrna. of the acreage, the natural areas program is calling for a reduction of 15%, and when that

comes out sometime this year, we're going to see a proposed reduction in city parks, as well. it is going to be, you know, compounding. and just to give you a sense of this, it is a not just dogs. a coalition in their march meeting took a position opposing the alternative because it did not look at the impact on city parks, and i think the court fact that tsunami friday happened right before that had an impact. there is no steady, as mr. wiener said, there is no study on human house, all of those impacts. we know that people who walk with a dog get no -- get more exercise than people who walk alone, and they actually lose more weight than when they walk alone or what other people. at the commission last march, we heard testimony that such a significant loss of off leash

access and the resulting overcrowding of city parks will lead to an increase in problem behavior in dogs. the experts say that office exercise creates better behaved dogs. dog bites are far less common in san francisco and other areas, largely because there is so much more often wish activity. to " a person from them koran humane society, it is not unlikely -- it is likely that there will be a change in this if this is reduced. the number one reason dogs are turned into shelters is because of behavioral problems. to quote an internationally known dog behavior is, there is no doubt in my mind that restricting this will be a social, public, and legal disaster for parks and cities, and i have given you copies -- oh, i have not given them to you. i am now, copies from various

experts on dog behavior, and these are basically nationally known expert. this is not just a random person. this is people who have made their living and studying animals and dogs. increasing the number of surrenders to shelters is a significant impact. we have tried to have a note to a philosophy in the city, that any potentially adoptable animal is not euthanize at city shelters, but the more you put them into shelters, it is likely there will be more that fall through the cracks, and that is likely to have a some of the impact on the city, and we do not want that. the commission voted 5-2. so wire the calls to restrict off leash? is basically an extreme view of what an urban park should be. it is like a museum, where you look at things from behind glass walls or where things are

all roped off, and you are stuck on the boardwalk up with a sign that says "do not enter, do not go here." it is a look but do not touch idea. we feel these areas are four active recreation. that is why they were created, and that is what the issue before. in this densely populated bay area, these are our backyards and our sandboxes. the people who created the ggrna knew that, and that is why there is so much about preserving recreational open space. if this is about sharing space, people, dogs, and nature have coexisted for decades, and we want to see that continue to go for decades to come. this is not a pristine wilderness. it is located within a city of 800,000 people. these are not pristine wilderness, and yet, we are being told that has to be managed as if it was.

we were told by a u.s. attorney your advice the ggrna that all of discretion in how they manage their units. for example, you can have a dog off leash in national preserves as long as they are hunting and killing animals. you do not manage a family value with the expectation that people have a solitary wilderness experience. you do not manage the ggrna that people have a solitary experience, and yet, that is what they're trying to do. we want to continue to show up -- to share that 1% of ggrna, and we essentially want to keep the "r" in the ggrna. the fact they do not have data

is telling because they're making radical changes in use without having done the data and the work that they need to know if they truly need to do one, and they cannot even give you statistics to say how many people are even visiting the ggrna on any given day. these of the things that should of been locked up before they even came up with this eis. is yet of any of the questions, i am here. >> before we get to public comment, if ggrna would like to respond, you can do so. it is your decision. ok. thank you. ok, we will now go to public comment. so, for those who are not -- if anyone else has a car, you can bring them up to ms. somera, who

will bring them to me. for those of you who have not done public comment before, here is how we do it. you will have two minutes. you do not have to take the full two minutes. i have a lot of people signed up, and that is great. you can take the full two minutes, but you do not have to, and if you want to say, "i agree with what so-and-so's says," that is ok. when you have two -- 30 seconds left, there will be eight light but as of, and when it is done, there will be another bill. we request no applauding, no booing, no anything, and i will call your name, and you can line up, and i will us that when you

line up, say what your name is, and then when the person ahead of you finishes, come right on up. you do not have to wait for me to call you, so we will not have big gaps between people. we will start the following people, and i also apologize for butchering people's names, which i will do. laura, alisa, k m a commissioner from the animal and welfare commission. from the sierra club, amy, neil, cheryl, vicky, carol arnold.

>> thank you, supervisors, for this opportunity. i am a veteran and the president of a veterinary group. i come here as an individual. i have not been given permission to speak on their behalf. it did not come up. something that sally mentioned, about the behavioral perspective. in my 20 years as a veterinarian, i have noticed an interesting thing. i think it is a matter of socialization. the dogs i handle have to be muzzled far less than dogs and surrounding communities. this lends itself clearly to the idea that the dogs are much better socialized, more trusting

of people, and thus less aggressive. they are less fearful of routine handling, and much more amenable to living as happy, healthy animals within our community. interestingly, i was thinking about this on my way over, even within the city, i have noticed some differences, and those areas very close to the presidio, where i have practiced for 10 years, the dogs there are super friendly. all of the dogs go to the park. where i currently practice, not so much. their behaviors are more restrained, and they are cautious. so even for like the happy go lucky hound, a lease restriction can actually cause problems. -- a leash restriction -- restriction. -- frustration.

they didn't have the opportunity to be paid as normally as they would if they are roaming freely, so in summary come i think that the proposal to restrict -- >> that is 30 seconds? >> no, that is the two minutes. thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lori, and i am the director of the animal shelter, and additionally, i hansard for years on the advisory committee and negotiated the rulemaking committee for dog management, and i would like to say thank you, thank you for working to approve the ggrna plan so both protect the natural resources and the recreational values of our city. their plan is overly restrictive, and it represents a major departure from the

balanced use of park lands that has prevailed for over 40 years. there is really plenty of space for balancing the needs of a divorce populace, and there is the diversity of experiences that can be preserved. by vastly reducing off leash, that will have a negative impact on tens of thousands of dogs, and as has been mentioned, also the behavioral health of dogs. we know that people get the same benefits from playing outside and exercising. and in my position at the shelter and as a former dog trainer, i know how vital it is for dogs to get off leash play. it has been mentioned, and i think it is particularly important to recognize that currently less than 1% of the

ggrna lands are available for off leash play, and this would reduce it even more. there is plenty of space for us to find a balance that is much more effective than setting up battle lines. i think we have an opportunity to educate our community, put up some better signage, fencing, and so forth, to reach the goal. commissioner wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lisa. i and disabled, and i do not have a dog. last year, i had to undergo grueling medical treatments, and even coming year is an effort. i am grateful for getting a chance to speak. for both my medical and physical health, i made a point to visit

as i could. getting out of my social isolation was essential. i knew that watching dogs play would bring me joy. i know that counting on an occasional extroverted dog, i would get a few pet. given my physical state and being a woman, i wanted to be safe. this park, with its open air format and that natural comings and goings of off leashed dogs was a perfect match. after not showing up there for a couple of days, a voice called out to me, "how are you doing? i have not seen you in a few days." i had no idea who was talking to me. she was a professional dog walker. i quickly learned that there is a vibrant community and that i had become part of it. she has continued to keep tabs on the and has continued to this day. she has driven me to doctors' appointments and has become part of my social network.

i have never met such a careful and self policing community. one woman told me that she knows if she collapses on the trail due to her health condition, as has happened once before, she and her dog would be taken care of by the people there. finding this community has been essential to my well-being, and i do not want to see it disappear. this is the area i have come to know, and i wanted you to know about it, too. think you for your time. commissioner wiener: 80. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is part of the national park service, and their mission is to preserve the wildlife and to provide for the enjoyment and leave it unimpaired for future generations. ggrna is well worth preserving. it is home to the archaeological

sites. it is also part of the golden gate biosphere reserve. one of about 300 such places in the entire world. this diverse species and these reserves represent resources which at the end of the day helped humans, like us, at the top of the food chain continue to live on the planet. ggrna is home to over 12 other plants and animals, some of which are endangered or rare, and this is more than any other national park in the entire continental united states. it serves as an economic engine. it attracts over 13 million visitors per year to san francisco, who spend lots of money in our city, and all of this income generates back to san francisco, as the ggrna is not there as a profit and a

deep. much of the budget is from tourist dollars, so these are not to be sneezed at. ggrna is asking for help while serving a growing population and providing a positive visitor experience for everyone. ggrna's proposal could hurt san francisco if our own city continues to fail to grapple with the estimated 90% of unlicensed dogs in the city, it fails to collect $2 to $5 million in licensing fees, or fails to enforce regulations. thank you. supervisor wiener: 80. hi. >> hi, supervisors. i am arthur feinstein, a chapter of the sierra club and on a conservation club. you have been told that there is

no problem with off leash dog walking on the beaches and ggrna because there is no impact, so i just want you to make a logical leap from what i tell you to seeing how the impact is happening on our beaches. this is a recent issue of the national wildlife federation, where they're talking about the loss of wetlands and other habitat for birds, in particular, they're talking about shorebirds. these are normally small things, two ounces, and even the big ones are four ounces. they are a small way, but they are large, and one can travel 7,000 miles in a few days. this is 6 ounces. where does all of that energy come from, eight days not feeding? whoa, they do something that is very miraculous. they actually absorb their digestive tract, so a the end of the day, when they land on places like the beach, where lots of these migratory birds

come down, they have lost their digestive system, and the first thing they do is start feeding on soft tissue things like worms in the mud so they can start rebuilding with a protein from those critters their digestive systems. if they are stressed and have to move a lot, they died. they do not die right in front of you, but they died later on down the road because they will not have a chance to build their digestive system to start building that their systems and the food energy is that they need, so do dogs have an impact off leash? all of us have seen the dogs rushed after these shore birds, and the birds fly off. it is very great. it is very exciting to see these birds fly back and forth when the dogs chase them. that is an impact. the results in the death of many of those birds down the road, so when you say that there is no impact, please consider this. thank you. supervised wiener: thank you.

next speaker. >> i am amy, and i am a share for the golden gate recreation area. i served on the advisory committee and in 1979 helped to put the dog regulation as it exists today, and i was on the recreation and park commission for 12 years in the 1970's and 1980's. this park did not have the usual studies that are done before a part is made. this park was a political party in the sense that at the sierra club, i was working with them, and we decided that we needed to get a park, and we had better get it now, so the studies were not done. if that is why in 1979, a lot was not known about the park, and so the commission said it would be ok to have this brought of the issue areas. and so that is partly how this came about.

we have learned a great deal since 1979. the population has increased. the pressure on these park lands has increased. all of us go back to when the park was started in 1972. among things that happen were the removal of the motorcycles, the removal of hunting from some areas, and the removal of sand mining by the recreation and park department on ocean beach. all of those things were not going with having a national park. it is not just the endangered species. it is also the economical -- ecological relations of all the species to each other and the composition of the various small areas of species and habitat and wildlife that exist in this park because a lot of the land here has b so there are fractured areas. specifically though, when we come to the idea of an urban

recreation area, -- >> -- supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for coming, and i thank you for your work. >> i took a snapshot of what was going on. this is sunday, a nice day in the park. you notice that most of the people are walking on the path. here is another view. you see most of the people walking on the path, not off of the path. in you will notice that the offenses are not up. there are no signs warning you. still, most of the people are on the path all of the way up to the top of the hill. this is how we recreates when we have dogs, and when we have seen years,