To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco
Commission of Animal Control & Welfare Archived Meetings

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

Minutes fromFebruary 8, 2007

5:33pm

I.          Call to Order and Roll Call

Present: Commissioners Richard Schulke, Mara Weiss, DVM, Laurie Routhier-Kennedy, Sherri Franklin, JR Yeager, Sherri Franklin, William Hamilton, Christine Garcia, Sgt. William Herndon and Capt. Vicki Guldbech, and Kenneth Sato

Absent:  Park & Rec. Dept. Representative

II.        Public Comment

Eric Mills Coordinator of Action for Animals informed us that there is a severe problem in Golden Gate Park with the overpopulation of the African Clawed Frogs.  Dr. Sheryl Green from Stanford says that there may be over 10,000 at the park already.  Currently, they are cannibalizing.  He hopes this item will be on the agenda for next month.

III.       Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 2006 and January 2007 Meetings

Both Approved Unanimously.  With regard to the November minutes, Comr. Yeager mentioned the “Unnamed” Female designation in the minutes.  Comr. Garcia said that (aside from the Commissioners) it is difficult to recognize voices and that if a speaker would like to have their names included, a name should be mentioned prior to each time a person speaks.  No public comment regarding the minutes.

IV.       Chairperson Richard Schulke’s Report and Opening Remarks

No “Welcome” to the Recreation and Park Representative because they never showed up to be welcomed.  Should a representative appear, they would be welcomed in person.  There is only one action item on the agenda this month.  The Chair requests cooperation and respectfulness towards one another during the meeting this evening because there are many people present who wish to speak.

Regarding an e-mail address for the commission, the Chair explained the situation with regard to a web and city-based e-mail, there are access issues, but there is also another problem with an off-site e-mail address (such as “yahoo.com”) due to the Sunshine Ordinance record keeping regulations.  However, we are working on this issue.  Comr. Yeager and Franklin had questions regarding details such as access and use of this e-mail address.

V.        Committee Reports/Commissioner’s Reports

Commissioner Franklin

Good news regarding the creation of a policy to extend protection to animals in domestic violence cases.  State representatives Mark Leno and Sheila Kuel will be sponsoring this policy and raising it in the February session.  Comr. Franklin will bring this proposal around to each supervisor to familiarize them with the new policy.

VI.       New Business

[Discussion/Action Item]

A. Should the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the control of portions of GGNRA land revert back to the City and County of San Francisco for management by the City and County of San Francisco?

Chair Schulke introduced the item and explained that we have invited speakers.  Comr. Routhier-Kennedy explained that she is recusing herself from participation with this item because she sits on the GGNRA committee.  Comr. Yeager had a question about the agenda item itself (i.e. Is this Old Business because it was raised in November?  Should there be a motion regarding whether we should discuss this first?).  A motion was made and passed to allow the invited speakers to speak first on this issue. 

Preliminary Objections:

Comrs. Hamilton and Yeager both made objections to the form and order of item, but mainly regarding the invited guest speakers and the order in which they were speaking first prior to commission discussion of the item.

Invited Opening Guest Speakers:

Chris Powell from GGNRA read a letter into the record.  The letter informed the public and the commissioner on the GGNRA policy of working with the public.  The letter included discussion of the Negotiating Rule-Making Committee (“NRMC”) which was formed for the for the purpose of changing any policy different from the conventional rules governing all federal parks.  Comr. Hamilton asked about the representatives from the city who attend the NRMC.  Powell explained that there are more than just city representatives on the NRMC, but SF is not on the committee because they have declined to participate.  Comr. Franklin shared similar concerns.

Martha Walters, Chair of Crissy Field Dog Group, does not support a reversion of the GGNRA back to the city of SF.  She explains she wants to see how the NRMC will work out.

Mark Massarra, representative from the Sierra Club and public interest and environmental attorney does much work to protect coastal areas.  He appeared and spoke in protection of the preservation of wild life lands in the GGNRA.  He explained the rich wilderness area which is uniquely located in this SF population center.  He encouraged people to look beyond their personal interests/self-gratification and compromise, similar to how fires on ocean beach are now allowed on certain areas in the spirit of balancing interests.  Comr. Herndon asked about nesting snowy plovers.  Not in a while.  Massarra explained the success of the snowy plover in Santa Barabara because areas were protected from disturbance.

Ocean Beach Dog Unnamed Male Representative (did not say name) explained that he has brought items for the commission to read up at the stand where he is standing.  He stated that the snowy plover is listed as “Threatened.”  He also stated that the credibility of the GGNRA is at issue because they choose money over environmental protection.  He brought the code provisions for the reversion and stated that it is a small fee.  He supports reversion of the SF GGNRA land to the city of SF.

Comr. Yeager asked about the fairness of having two speakers from one group and the time allotted to them.

Ocean Beach Dog representative Dr. Susan Valente (name? spoke fast) says that the GGNRA could have already codified the Pet Policy, but chose not to and are currently mismanaging the GGNRA.  She explained that in order to participate in the committee, a private meeting stated that each member must agree that no dogs are allowed off leash.  She supports reversion of the SF GGNRA land to the city of SF.

Comr. Yeager noted that the last speaker spoke for 14 minutes.

Unnamed Male from Golden Gate Audubon Chapter said he would like to read a letter from Elizabeth Murdock.  He read the letter into the record.  Ms. Murdock explains that the government has maintained and protected the GGNRA lands well protecting wildlife and biological diversity.  She believes that the GGNRA should continue to remain in the management of the GGNRA.  Comr. Yeager asked about how many plovers were nesting.  The speaker answered that Ocean Beach and Crissy field are the primary residence for this bird.  The feed and rest here.  The Snowy Plover appears at the end of July and leaves at the end of March or middle of April.  Comr. Garcia asked  about fencing.  There is no protection at Ocean Beach and there is protection at Crissy Field.

Center for Biological Diversity speaker Brent Platter appeared, spoke and answered questions regarding the Snowy Plover.  This is one of the most maligned species around because it shares a habitat that humans enjoy as well.  Under the Coastal Act, the land is designated as Environmentally Sensitive areas.  The Snowy Plover is a Threatened species privy to all the same protections of an endangered species.  35 years ago, when the Pet Policy was signed, we did not have an endangered species act.  San Francisco has the #1 most dog off-leash areas than any other city in the nation.  ASPCA, American Human Assoc, PETA, Dogs Deserve Better and other groups have joined in their protect ion of the Snowy Plover. He opposes a reversion of the GGNRA area to SF.  Comr. Hamilton asked about Platter’s article in the local paper and about terminology use.  Platter explained that “dismantling” is an accurate description of this agenda item and that “imperiled,” although not a legal term, is a word that encompasses threatened and endangered and stated that he had numerous biological textbooks to refer the commissioner to.

Representative Jean Donaldson spoke about dog aggression and dog parks relating to dogs off-leash as opposed to on-leash.  She cited numerous other people who work with animals and encourage dogs to play off-leash.  An exercised and watched off-leash dog is a happy dog.  She addressed the issue of whether dogs off leash pose a threat to the community and they do not.  Comr. Hamilton and Comr. Franklin had a question and comment about relevancy.

S.P.C.A. San Francisco representative Trisha Ickard expresses the SFSPCA’s support of all animals.  She encourages this commission to ask the Board of Supervisors to look into the NRMC.  Jan Q. Smith is the new SF SPCA president and encourages safe off-leash dog areas as “one of the few remaining areas where dogs can socialize freely.”  She says we cannot remain silent on this issue.

Sally Stevens from SF Dog spoke and said that the 1% of GGNRA lands is the one place where you can take dogs off leash and walk with your dog.  Comr. Hamilton had a question regarding her statistics because he heard that 2.4 miles of SF GGNRA area is for dogs off leash and 2.1 miles of SF GGNRA area is protected.  Stevens says the 1% includes other counties not in SF (San Mateo and Marin Counties).  Steven says that over half of the SF land is already off-leash.  She says the 2.4 area allowed for dogs off-leash also allows many humans as well.

Inaudible discussion among the commissioners and public followed regarding answers to these statistical questions.  Chair allowed person to speak.

Unnamed Female from the public said .8 miles of the SF GGNRA lands are still being negotiated.  The 2.2 have been taken away from off-leash areas for protection.  

Commissioner Discussion:

Comr. Yeager said that he believed there were numerous violations that occurred throughout this meeting tonight regarding protocol.  He wished to have clarification and specificity on what is being asked in this action item.  Chair Schulke responded that the public came forward and requested that this issue be placed on the agenda.

Comr. Franklin stated that numerous people came to this commission because they believed that the Commission needed to address how things were being run with the GGNRA.

Comr. Hamilton stated concurred that there have been continued requests from the community to address this issue.  He suggested compromise between the two sides and for people to come forward with suggestions.  What will happen with the old GGNRA lands when the SF Park and Rec. manage the lands?

Comr. Garcia states that she is mainly interested in the public addressing two questions she has:  1)  Why are the off-leash areas currently available to the public inadequate? and 2)  Why is the possible protection of an animal not worth the minor inconvenience of putting a dog on-leash in certain areas?

Chair Schulke stated that he does not know where he stands on this issue but is not convinced that reversion is the answer.

Public Comment:

Unnamed Female #1 says that we should get the Board of Supervisors to take a look at the GGNRA management.  She says the dog people will never be happy because they want everything.

Unnamed Female #2 says that she has given up using the parks altogether.  She says dog owners are rude to her.

Mat Slavich (?) says that since they are concerned about the welfare of animals they should know that there any many other animals, including shore birds, on the beach as well that need protection.  Humans as well as dogs are disturbing to this wildlife.

Bill Carl (?) is member of Cal. Native Plants Society and Sierra Club and does habitat restoration.  He thinks that the environmentalists have lost sight of humanity, and reminds us that we are sending a very strong message to the government about bad-faith of the GGNRA.

Phillip Geary says this item is frivolous and polarizing.  Says this commission should be in favor of all animals.

Elisa, professional dog walker and horse rider on Ocean Beach, says that there should be a joint effort from SF and GGNRA in managing this GGNRA land.

Jan Scott, long time resident of SF and Ocean Beach enthusiast says that she used to be a supporter of the GGNRA taking over and reminds the commission that it should be a recreational area.  She says that the GGNRA has changed the rules and are not accountable.

Mike Yoshioka, a SF resident, discusses the advantages of having wildlife so close to his city.  He is thankful to the national park service to provide this to us.  We need to be delicate with this relationship.

Jeff Hoffman says he does not like having to appear to oppose this item since it is selfish to allow dogs off leash in all areas at the expense of wildlife.

Steven Gollub, Director of Ocean Beach Dog, does not like the portrayal of dogs as the root of all evil.

Unnamed Male #1 says that he is blissfully ignorant on these issues.  He says that he would like to see some signs out there.  He says to make the boundaries clear and post signs up.

Richard Swan, resident of SF, compliments Schulke on his even-handedness on this issue.  We should work together to come to a resolution on this issue.

Barbara Beck enjoys the recreational area.

Unnamed Female #3 thinks that these polarizing meetings do not acknowledge other proactive approaches to problem solving.  She encourages ecologically responsible positive actions as opposed to offensive reversion tactics.  Can’t we work together?

Unnamed Male #2 described the provisions of the pet policy.

Neil Basaiy (?) national parks non-profit advocacy group expresses his opposition to any reversion plan.

Betty Darenson is puzzled by this issue.  Migratory birds also use ocean beach.  She believes that educational signs need to be posted so that dog walkers understand why certain areas are on-leash/off-leash.

Lindsey Keaffover encourages this reversion idea to be sent over to the Board of Supervisors for review.

Charles Fister does research on shore birds and Alaskan wildlife and migratory science on bords.  He lives near ocean beach.  He says that the degree of disturbance is greater than most of the other studies he has done.  There needs to be vigorous enforcement of off-leash laws for the protection to actually work.  The GGNRA has not really been “on the ball” at defining the issue.  It is not enough.

Robin Bucklee speaks on behalf of himself and his family.  He said he used to be in favor of the GGNRA taking over.  However, he was told that he would be able to recreate the way he had always been able to recreate in the past.

Bruce Kimble (?) supports reversion because the federal government has not complied with the spirit of the transfer, the pet policy and the NRMC is not working.

Dr. Karen Wo is not advocating for reversion, however, if things don’t work out with the committee then she will resort to it.

Rusty Holden, SF resident, says that the City should exercise their right of reversion.  They should go through the procedure of saying that the rights have been violated.

Unnamed Male #3 says that the City is obligated to enforce the policies of the GGNRA.

Nancy Workhorm works with rec and park and SF SPCA and thinks the status quo is not working.

Brent Platter says that the GGNRA process should be allowed to continue because they are committed to finding places where dogs can go freely.

Unnamed Female #4 says that the NRMC has ignored the dog walkers time after time.

Nancy Stafford supports reversion and should in the very least look into that.

Commissioner Comments:

Comr. Hamilton asked if the voting is only limited to this reversion request.

Comr. Franklin agreed and wished to amend the item on the agenda so that we could vote on something different but that request was denied.  She is disappointed that the City has not stepped up to the plate to get involved.

Chair Schulke is not convinced that reversion is the way to go.

Comr. Yeager does not think that this item should have been on the agenda, and agrees that reversion is a good idea either.  He thinks that there were many good suggestions tonight.  He also says that SF should be a welcome place for animals to land.

Comr. Hamilton asked if ACC gets several calls for GGNRA dogs off-leash issues?  Capt. Guldbech said they get dogs at large calls, but they do not necessarily respond because of jurisdiction.  Comr. Hamilton says that reversion is not the answer.

Comr. Weiss is sympathetic to all points of view and sees the bottom line of the frustration is the City not being involved.  She asked if there could be modifications on the agenda items.

Comr. Franklin interjected the same opinion and is trying to figure out a motion to have the Board of Supervisors get involved with the Negotiating Rule Making Committee.

Chair Schulke said that we can make that a new item for another agenda, but that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that we not change the Action Item.  Notice must be given.  He believed it would be unfair to vote on something that is unnoticed.

Comr. Hamilton says that we are recommending that the GGNRA policy revert or not.

Comr. Routhier-Kennedy asked if this commission could send up a different recommendation.

Comr. Garcia thinks reversion is extreme.  One reason is because of how Park and Rec. would deal with things and the negative impact that reversion may have on another animal.

Motion was made to vote on the reversion issue.  Comr. Routhier-Kennedy recused herself, Cmr. Franklin abstained, Comrs. Schulke, Weiss, Yeager, Hamilton and Garcia opposed a reversion to of the GGNRA land to SF.

VII.     Public Comment

None.

VIII.    Task Allotment

Chair Schulke will work on an e-mail and work on getting a Park and Rec. Representative to appear at the meeting.

IX.       Calendar Items

Professional Dog Licenses for next month.

X.        Adjournment

8:35pm