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 mclaren park are already very crowded. as guardians dog walkers and their pets are

[inaudible] gg nra and forced to relocate to see dog parks, the problems associated with this type of overcrowding that

>> that's why that information is needed. as the other speakers have indicated, one of the core functions of the national recreation area is in fact recreation. obviously, it has to be balanced with

preservation of resources and most importantly, taking into account the human environment. the human environment is the bind defined under national environmental policy act as to be interpreted comprehensive to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environments. that's not what happened here. we complained to the park service that there original plan basically said emma "the quality of urban areas is not, not a significant factor in determining a dog management policy for the gg nra." we made comments on that and it reappears without any change in the current plan. i think you have it absolutely right supervisor winner, that they

did not makes for significant changes and did not listen. why is that important? why is it important that they did not listen to the people of san francisco and elected officials? 1st of all, if you take as an example chrissy feels. when it was created, it started with 38 acres that were devoted to off leash recreation. as part of that environmental assessment at that time it was determined to increase that to 70 acres. there was a consideration of all of the users and the impact and there was also talk into account that it was quite likely that the use was going to increase dramatically. one of the reasons that they did that was to increase the area of recreation. what has happened in 2011? that 70 acres is being dramatically reduced without an analysis of the impact on the human environment, the people who use the park and their dogs. that's unacceptable. there is important to have an balanced

environmental analysis and one of the suggestions that was made to be an adaptive management plan. a plan that would involve outlook import to monitor the impact on resources. the response by the national park service to that suggestion was that well, will create one quote unquote. quote, resource impact will be monitored without anything else. the effect of that is that the management strategy leads agency with the even more discretion and a vague undefined standard to allow it scaled-back recreation even further. we need an aggressive adaptive management plan with public inputs. with respect to the time to respond, we did say a few moments ago the size of the current environmental impact statement. that has to

be compared to the original and all of the comments. there just simply isn't enough time to do it, and i urge you, in addition and support of the resolution there needs to be more time. the public needs. thank you very much >> thank you very much. okay, so at this point we are going to open it up for public comments. public comment would be 2 min. you will hear a soft bell when you have 30 seconds remaining in and allowed about when your time is up. either by the timer that you can see from the lectern. so i will, if there's anyone because of a physical limitation or a childcare issue that needs to go earlier, please just let us know and were happy to accommodate you. when i called back your name you don't have to go in that exact order you can line up on that side of the room to your right if you're facing the committee. so i will call the 1st series of names. i

apologize for this prancing people's names. susan adams, [inaudible], felicia aran, douglas morgan, vicki tiernan, beverly albrecht, thomas group, lindsay [inaudible] and margaret writer. go ahead >> thank you very much for having this meeting. i come here representing myself, a senior citizen. 68 years old going to be 69 next week. basically, the way i'm being

fit and healthy is important to make his will expand my life and quality of my life. one of those things is walking up the hill the 600 foot hill about 6 or 700 feet. i do it with my dog. my dog is my child. my partner and i have a dog named sally. i rest my case. she's like my child. walking with her on a leash doesn't do it for me. i cannot get the kind of exercise i need to get. so, i read this thing from the recreation federal government, and 4 years ago it's the same thing. just rehashed over and over. we have some very disingenuous statistics at him. they continue to say 11% of the infinite incidents are dog related. when you actually look at them almost 50% of those incidents are giving tickets to people for not having their

leash which is kind of like a circular reasoning if you will. if you take all those out it's about 3 or 4% of the incidents. again we have the government trying to solve a problem that does not exist. i'm really very violently opposed to this actually change my life and the life of many of my friends. i really need to have crissy field to keep my health up. that's my comments for today. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> mystic is there been a resident in san francisco for 35 years. a couple years ago we got up dog and a change our lives. i participated in the last hearings and demonstrated out at fort mason. because for us, having for constant and the other areas of the gg nra to take our dogs who is part child and part shepherd and weeks 50 pounds, has been an amazing development in our lives. i

find the level of hypocrisy involved with the latest plans for the gg nra to be incredible. what i would like to suggest is that we send a copy of this hearing to the executive branch and especially to michelle obama and barack obama perhaps they can figure out their dog bo having access to the white house lawn and the way we're going to be looking at our 25 x 100' lot and thinking about where were going to walk our dog. thank you for your time and especially scott wiener for being our local supervisor. i live between pro-con part. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon supervisors. my name is susan adams. i live in [inaudible] valley and i have a dog. i mostly walk at fort constant although i need the paved area

like sunset trail for health reasons and joint reasons so i also use mclaren park and stern grove for the same reason. one of the major concerns i have has been brought up today is the overcrowding of city parks. if gg nra dog management plan comes into fruition yesterday, because i couldn't even get to fort constant with my dog. the road was closed because of that race the great highway was closed and the skyline road was closed. so after being in a big traffic jam i want to stern grove. i couldn't believe, this is anecdotal of course i could believe the parking was although it up the hill. of the dog park part of it. there were, i would say, over 100 dogs there and tons of people. they were bicyclists trying to navigate on the paved road and

skateboarders and elderly lady with a walker and cars, there was a car coming from the pine lake end of it. i assume dropping stuff off at the picnic tables, but here they come slowly up the way. this is not safe. this is not safe for me. it's not safe for my dog running around chasing squirrels and it's definitely not safe for the elderly lady in the water. so i hope my dog up and we turned around and left. so my main concern is gg nra going to listen to any this? they did not listen to years ago. does this resolution have any bite? let's take the land back. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is felicia allen. i was at [inaudible] 20102. a standard before you representing 2 different constituents. 1st i wasn't not done owner mother of 2 children who like any parent i was often entertained.

secondly and recently as a dog owning anti-nester. in both world have spent time at fort constant. cold soggy mornings, lovely sunny afternoons but regardless of the weather, outings. exuberant communing with nature with the dog population only enhanced the experience. for my kids was an opportunity to exercise and to see a half-hour more different dogs then they'd see at the westminster kennel show. to appreciate the diversity of species and to witness the dogs connection with both their humans and other dogs. this was an excursion, not to be missed. surely we could have gone to pump audio or gloria beaches but without the dog activity it would have been a far lesser growing up experience. never, not once, did i as a dog with human feel that the park was not as much for us as for the others. the notion is ridiculous. with the children out of the house, and a dog

entering our family, for constant seems a natural place to keep going to and i do. just yesterday, in fact, my dog and i cavorted together at the part where we also saw other families with young children enjoying just as we had years previously. in a city that prides itself on being progressive, i urge you to realize this designation is not just about politics but about quality of life as well. allowing the federal government to do [inaudible] separate cisco this free and open space to run wild would be a terrific loss for all of us. i wonder about their nonappearance. it seems incredibly disdainful of what we in the city are looking for. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next he could. >> next speaker >> my name is [inaudible] i spit on the service go native and we used for constant to

exercise our dog for my entire life. i believe that the 1973 plan was intended to maintain the traditional usage of this urban recreation area. it's meant for use by the people of san francisco. i think the way that we use it is the way that we intend to use it and i don't think that should be changed. i also note for sure the impact to the city parks will be awful and unsustainable and that impact will be felt by all park users, not just people with dogs. thank you so much for writing this resolution. i firmly support that. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. thank you for having this meeting. my name is scott morgan. i've been a resident of the city since 1875. on a dog owner a homeowner and business owner in the city. i'm astounded that this even [inaudible]. because

the city has so many wonderful things about it that are attractive all over the world. one of them is there are dog park out at fort constant in our attitude about live and let live environments. this is coming from an outside source that has no respect for that and so besides congratulating you on your resolution and hope that you have some affect, i would urge you all to even provide a greater area for dog owners can walk their dogs off leash. as many said it's important part of the dogs socialization. it makes for nicer chesler dogs when they are on leash in confined spaces , and it's good for everybody in the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervised my name is vicki cannon and i wholeheartedly support the resolution and thank you for the sponsors of the documents. i