>> in addition, there will be significant negative impact on san francisco's neighborhood parks. our park system, which is very well used a cassette such a great park system, has dog play areas that are heavily heavily used and we already have a situation where some of our dog parks are so heavily used that there sometime tension among dog owners and dog walkers, tension between with dogs and without dogs. for example, i been working folks

with upper douglas.part, which at certain times of day will have 100 dogs and our. that is not uncommon. in terms of some of our heavy usage dog parks. the number of dogs it can use, [inaudible] is reduced. those dogs are not going to disappear. they and their owners or walkers will simply go to a city park and we will see additional usage and tension. the [inaudible] 2 years ago have not done this analysis but in its current proposal reported to analyze the impacts on city parks if this plan goes into affect. unfortunately, that analysis appears to be inadequate. it basically indicates neighboring parks, parks that are close by, it will be impacted. we know people from all over san francisco, marin, san mateo county, utilize these properties even if they don't

use live close by. so i think there will be impact well beyond the immediate adjacent parks. so, i look forward to the hearing today and to the consideration of this resolution. colleagues are there any opening comments you would like to make? >> thank you supervisor would get another of a lot of folks to speed on the sulky my comments brief. but i mainly wanted to cosponsor this hearing because as a district that borders ocean beach there will be a significant impact to many of our residents. even currently. walking that allowed either on the shore off leash north of [inaudible] and south of [inaudible]. a lot of the portion will be impacting our district residents. i believe that according to the department care and controlled are in there about 120,000 dogs in san francisco. while i do believe in a balanced approach

in moving forward, i do want to make sure that previous hearing we understand what the impact will be on our surrounding recreation and park area as well. thank you very much and i look forward to hearing your comments >> thank you. supervisor obelisk >> i would like to [inaudible] >> there we go. thank you colleagues. i neglected before can we have a motion to excuse supervisor kim and shoe from this hearing? >> okay >> if we could take that without objection. great. okay, were going to start the hearing today by hearing from a few presentations and then we'll move to public comments. i 1st would like to, and i will say that i have bgg nra attended today we would've given them probably the 1st in terms of making the presentation. we were also prepared to give a timeslot to in the beginning

environmental organizations but they informed us they would not be attending as well. so, 1st i like to call up samantha rojas. she is with congressman jackie speer. for each of these initial presentations we will provide a 4 min. and the timer will be gone. so ms. ross, thank you for being here >> thank you. 1st of all thank you supervisor winner. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. i think that your argument about the dramatic shift that's going to be taking place in our region is off leash dog licking if it's restricted a spot on. i think that it's incumbent that am speaking for congressman jackie spears, of course, as elected officials and employees within the national park service, we need to recognize that we have an obligation to provide services for all taxpaying americans. this exploiting an opportunity for one group to

use one part or another would violate our public chart. there should be significant on barges were sufficient areas, rather to walk their dogs off leash, honest, and to walk with no drugs at all. i find it unacceptable that the preferred alternative provided by the gg nra dog management plan does not provide for off leash usage in many areas and i urge the nps modified to modify the plan to allow for greater access to such racial opportunities. the plan significantly restricts off leash voice command dog walking in many areas of my district were off leash dog walking had occurred for decorates. i believe that is the responsibility of the national park service to work cooperatively with the local jurisdiction in which our parks are located. in this situation, as you mentioned, we have recreational areas that are in a urban metropolitan area and reflect the needs of users inviting there. supervisor, as i have in the past, i want to renew my offer to assist you in working with the national park service. nps

needs to cooperate with local jurisdiction. hopefully, the city's comments, my own, and the users of nps will create a dog management plan that recognizes the need for both governmental agencies to serve the public multiple needs. last week, constituents and my desert extension of the public comment. given the recent government shutdown since [inaudible] the actual plan itself, right here, 2700 pages, i too believe that additional time for comment and analysis should be allowed by nps. but constituents have requested a public comment period be extended to at least february 17. thank you again for supervisor winner and staff. supervisor obelisk, and supervisor came for your leadership on this front. i look forward to partnering with you on this issue. thanks >> thank you ms. ross. faq congressman speer. jeter got not >> i just want to know we actually do have a board rule

at the board supervisors not to clap or goal or otherwise, just to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity people can always do a thumbs-up or thumbs down or finger wave. thank you. >> next like to invite up sally stevens, commissioner sally stevens who is the chair of the commission of animal control and welfare. >> can we bark? thank you for holding this hearing. people have been walking with their dogs for over 50 years long before he became the gg nra. in 1972 the gg was created and this is a direct quote "to expand maximal extent possible the outdoor recreation opportunities available to the region." in several citizens voted in 1972 command over ocean beach land then to the gg nra it was only after promised

officials promised in the chronicle they preserve recreational uses of the part. in 1979 they formalize the pet policy that allowed dogs to be off leash and only 1% of this 80,000 acres. the it was created and managed for decades for recreation. the 1980 gen. management plan offered a realistic view of the gg rna is causing much of the land was quote, "man created landscape significantly altered by the military." the [inaudible] should be managed for high visitor use. that make sense. over the years unfortunately, the administration has changed its mind and now sees recreation is a bad word. in 2011 they released a draft of a new gen. management plan which yet to be finalized because the vast majority of their land, about 90% including most of the ocean beach and most of for constant to be managed as nature zones. which they

defined as areas with low visitor use them a few amenities, controlled access, where people expect backcountry types of visitor experiences and where challenge risk and testing of outdoor skills would be important to most visitors. this is an ocean beach in fort constant. nature zones make sense in a remote wilderness like yosemite park but they're absurdly located in the city limits within san francisco. the administration wants recreation out. also in 2011 they released a dog management plan that would cut or you can want with your dogs on i 1% of their land by 90%. public comment was overwhelmingly likely one opposed to the plan. do the board of supervisors voted to oppose it. we asked [inaudible] to do a thorough study. to accommodate the criticisms they announced they would redo the plan. we expected significant changes. we did not get them. the new

dog management plan released last month is essentially the same as the old 2011 plan with only minor archly cosmetic changes. compared to the old plan the new plan was still cut where you can walk with your dog on and off leash by 90%. it will still ban dogs entirely and on leash from three-quarter of ocean beach. it was still banned from hundreds of acres for concerts. if you can make such major changes unitas audible called credible reason to do so. the new plan still offers no evidence that dogs cause any serious problem or significant environmental damage. instead, it still talked about that may might or could happen but offers no proof that any of these impacts are now or whenever occurred [inaudible] in the 50 years that dogs have wanted. the new plan still has no thorough study of impacts on city parks in which you asked him to do in 2011. other areas that are currently off leash adjust

ocean beach and for constant alone, the new plan will ban dogs entirely, even on leash, from a total area that is roughly 5 times larger than the area of all the awfully space and can persist a bit city parks combined. that's just the proposed closure and ocean beach and for constant. how can they possibly say the closing that much space of thousands of thousand people with dogs will currently walk there will not overwhelm the significantly small city parks. it's time for symphysis go to stand up for the [inaudible] and keep your promises to keep their promises to preserve recreational access with everyone including does. please support the resolution and oppose the misguided plan to people with dogs and ultimately to kick most recreational users out so [inaudible] and a backcountry extent >> thank you commissioner. next i like to invite up our round up from the recreational and parks department. mr. randolph >> hello supervisors. thank you supervisor for inviting us to participate in this hearing. today. the recreation and park department management that you know over 4000 acres of land. dogs are welcome on leash throughout our system and we also manage about 27 off leash dog area. around the city. we understand the goal of the national park service but we also are charged with managing land that contains sensitive natural habitat and is utilized for many a variety of recreational purposes. supervisor, at the original hearing on the ncs and need to document our department access to specific concerns. the need to document did not consider exit city parks and possible regulations on commercial dog walking would have different limits eating leading to confusion and additional impacts on city parks. as you know, the local dog walk association allows up to 8 off leash dogs per.walker where the gg nra is currently thinking about sex under the proposal.

the nps and tended to address the issue of impact on city parks. the.walker legislation, i still point of concern and will continue our discussion of nps and you supervisor on this issue. we understand that the nps is still taking public comment on the environmental impact study. we will continue to monitor that process very closely. we'll stay conversation with you and nps as we move to finalize the plan and the implementation. >> thank you. just a couple of questions. if you look at the environmental document produced by the national park service, did it indicates very likely that an increase in the level of recreational use by private and commercial dog walking will occur at nearby dog walking areas. it's unclear to me why the analysis, why the national park service came to that conclusion since people from

all over the city use gg nra. does the department believe that a reduction in dog access, at the gg nra will result in increased dog usage at our city parks? >> that is a very fair point. unfortunately, usually depend on the type of environmental studies to make that determination. to get that empirical data. however, you and i and everybody knows that our current system is already stressed and heavily impacted by dog uses. as you mentioned, per douglas, [inaudible] grove and other dog areas in the city, so, of course additional people and additional dogs will put an additional strain on our park system and infrastructure. unfortunately, we don't know the exact amount of stress it will put, but we all already

having issues and concerns enforcing current off leash laws and maintaining our current [inaudible] >> as i understand has there been a calculation whether it's by department or by the park service, of what that additional stress on our city parks will be? based on this plan? i had not seen it but i'm wondering if there is one >> no. we were waiting for the gg nra to determination to make that determination, and we would refer [inaudible] for analysis of that >> it's just it seems to me this is a very general cursory analysis of the impact of city parks and that's why was wanted to know if there was some sort of analysis that i was unaware of. >> the department has not done one >> okay. so, if there is an influx of additional dogs in the city dog play areas, all

the way to non-dog play areas as well, that will increase wear and tear and maintenance fees for those parks? >> that is correct. if we see additional use of dogs and people in our parks it puts an additional strain on our resource object >> great. thank you very much >> thank you. >> okay, next i like to call up rebecca katz the director of animal care and control. >> good afternoon, supervisor. on director cats director of director of animal care and control agent. you've already heard a little bit from others about perspective impacts on users of dg nra property. i also want to note that as an agency responsible for processing commercial dog walker permits, we saw a spike

in the number of applications during the 2 weeks federal government was shut down and gg nra property was inaccessible. if that's any indication of impact on city property there will be a significant effect. but i would also like to generate accs concern about this plan as it relates to animal welfare and more specifically our concerns are mostly similar to those in 2011 because as commissioner stevens noted, this is very similar plan to that. preferred alternative to 2011. accs responsible for stray and unwanted domestic animals and providing them new homes but we also provide rescue and facilitate wildlife rehabilitation per sec injured and orphaned animals throughout san francisco. therefore where an advocate for dogs and off leash play areas, but also for other animal welfare issues including coexistence with wildlife. the national park service's dog management plan for the gg nra notes the plant

objectives are to provide high-quality visitor use experiences, maximize compliance with dog rules and to ensure the protection of natural cultural and recreational resources of that land. the issue of dogs on gg nra property has been presented as a matter of choosing the side of dogs or that of law enforcement and natural resources. one or the other. at the acc does not view this as an either or situation. while we share advocates concerns about wildlife and other environmental impact and also the problems caused by those who do not follow rules, we don't think that the nps has clearly demonstrated the presence of art leash dogs as the sole reason or even primary cause of damage to native species. further, the national park service has not addressed the issue of civilian signage, education, reciprocity of enforcement of managing issues. the preferred alternative overly restrictive given that the national park service has not taken intermediate steps to educate the public and users about what is required for

coexistence. in addition, reciprocal enforcement of animal welfare laws provide additional alternatives to these restrictions. primer example that i would raise is with the dog charlie that attacked the national park service police course last year . that was a situation where there were claims people did not know horses came through there. and so signage would have been one area that would've been helpful and educational to prevent such an event from happening. in addition, it was the city's vicious and dangerous dog unit of the police department that help hearing about that dog and was involved in enforcement issues around it so there's room for reciprocity of enforcement as well. accordingly adaptive management plan might include signs, [inaudible] enforcement of these rules or laws similar to a local pooper scooper laws

dishes gauges dogs licensing laws and permanent, dog walker permitting process would really help us to address some the issues they've raised as problematic. we would be happy to further discussions with the national park service to consider solutions to our shared concerns about visitor and employee safety, wildlife protection and maintaining resources for future generations. we like to work with them on solutions that allow for most more flexibility and coming up with a plan that addresses the need for san francisco residents both human and nonhuman and unlike other national park service properties the gg nra shows borders with a dense urban area and has a history of use and desirability for san franciscans with diverse interests and challenges. peaceful coexistence requires understanding movement from both sides to find a solution that provides all are competing and componentry goals. >> thank you. next i like to, we have 2 remaining speakers. then look at the public comments. next i like to call up the san francisco spca. which will be addressing animal

behavior issues in relation to this plan. welcome. >> hello. i am here on behalf of the san francisco spca could get as many of you know were local animal welfare organization founded in 1868 who just celebrated our 45th anniversary. with around interacting with dog guardians for a long time. i am the san francisco cpa director advocacy and i wish you currently convey our strong opposition to the current form of the gg nra's supplemental dog management plan. conversely, we supported the resolution that supervisor winner has introduced. as many of this hearing no off leash dog access is allowed in only about 1% of gg nra lands. specifically reducing the areas already limited will adversely

impact 10 or hundreds of thousands of san franciscans. the current plan allows for only extremely limited off leash area which will soon undoubtedly become overcrowded. in particular the san francisco spca is concerned about the negative impact that these sweeping dog park closures will have on services for residents and their pets. for many urban guardians, especially seniors, who find it difficult to exercise their pets while on these, the gg nra represents the only place they can allow their dogs to play, romp around, and truly release a lot of energy. take away the exercise and guardians may be unable to meet the physical demands of the pets. the san francisco spca [inaudible] dr. janine berger is an internationally renowned speaker she's well published writer and esteemed educator on behavior sciences. her unique expertise with respect to animal behavior has bring the spca's position on this particular issue. as dr. berger will test unfortunately she was not able to be here today, like food and water, daily exercise is essential to adopt proper

health and well-being. many behavior abnormalities and dogs are due to underlying anxiety and exercise is the foundation to curbing most of these anxieties. for example, the amount of exercise the dog receives can affect his or her behavior, tradability, and his aggression levels. these are of course, important considerations to maintain public safety in crowded urban environments. off leash exercise benefits all of san francisco not just dog guardians and their pets. a supervisor winner has suggested, the gg nra closures will likely result in very serious overcrowding of san francisco in the dog parks. the city parks are already quite limited and off leash areas are particularly scarce. the san francisco spca we frequently hear from our community popular off leash areas such as the auto park mission dolores park and re