1. Call to Order and Roll Call
5:30 PM
Present Commissioners, Philip Gerrie,
Jack Aldridge DVM, Geneva Page, Andrea Brooks, Sally Stephens,
Susanna Russo, Rebecca Katz – ACC, John Denny – SFPD, Lisa Wayne
– Rec & Park
Comr. Stephens – Will be taking items
out of order on the agenda. Item # 5 will be first. Then # 6. Then
back to items # 3 & #4.
5. Old Business
A) Discussion and possible
action to send a letter to the Board regarding the high death rate of
Western Gulls at Pier 94.
Comr. Hemphill – Invites William
O’Brien to speak.
William O’Brien - Fish & Game –
Learned from the scientists that some things could be done through
mitigation. Since last month took the existing information from Wild
Care, Peninsula Humane, and IBRRC compiled it into a summary. It was
700 pages of e-mails, information, and scientific studies. Have not
been doing necropsies due to lack of funding but have been saving the
dead birds. Will be taking air samples from several places in the
area for Aspergillosis spores. Will review hazing techniques at
various sites. Hazing becomes ineffective after a while because the
birds get used to them. Have studied the gulls feeding ranges which
varies considerably depending on the availability of food and water.
The range varies from 27square miles to 100 square miles. With
Recology it is probably much less. Need to take air samples for
fungal lode in the area as well as control sites. That is the hold up
now because that needs funding. Number of dead birds varied a lot due
to number of people available to look for them. Believes
Aspergillosis, takes 48 to 72 hours to kill them. Many birds also
were oiled but actual cause of death is hard to determine. Number of
birds found oiled has gone down dramatically since Darling covered
their trucks and barrels. Taking the necropsy statistics of gulls,
cause of death is about 80% Aspergillosis and 2-4 % from oil and
greased feathers. Money should go towards where it can do the most
good. Having visited Darling multiple times, they are in compliance.
Have not seen any signs of negligence or intent for birds to get hurt
which is why this is not a law enforcement issue. Every site that is
being investigated is also in compliance. Since no law is being
broken, it will be a scientific study that requires mitigation.
Number of dead birds can be lowered but cannot prevent the problem
completely.
Comr. Aldridge – Why is one species
of gull not being affected?
William O’Brien – It is not found
in Mew’s Gulls. Asperegillosis is usually contracted during
rehabilitation in birds recovering from something else like being
oiled. Looked for situations to mimic that situation. In doors with
decaying organic material. Aspergillus grows on hay, grasses, and
animal products. Found a total of seven sites that have those
conditions. Confident that the source will be found and numbers will
go down, just don’t know how long it will take.
Comr. Hemphill – Control Sites?
William O’Brien – Alcatraz will be
one. They have a breeding colony of gulls there. Ocean Beach is
another. Aspergillus is found everywhere but it only becomes a
problem when huge quantities are stirred up into the air. Gulls can
only get it in two ways, either eat it or breath it in.
Comr. Hemphill – How long do the
tests take?
William O’Brien – Do not know what
the testing takes nor how long it takes for results. Results come
back anywhere from 30 days to 6-8 months. UC Davis has been great
with returning test results.
Comr. Hemphill – Heard that the
testing equipment is here?
William O’Brien – It is in
Fairfield. Near IBRRC. Not many people know how to use it though.
Julia Burco, in Oregon, is familiar with the equipment and has agreed
to come down when funding is available. She will train the folks
from OSPAR on how to use the equipment.
Comr. Hemphill – Concerned that we
might be on a permanent pause.
William O’Brien – If this were an
oil spill like the Cosco-Busan, we would have funding immediately. If
there was one source that was suspect we would have funding.
Scientists at OSPAR are writing a grant proposal to test several
possible sites and I am confident it will be funded. Without funding
the investigation will stop.
Comr. Denny – Are you sure more gulls
per capita are dying in this area?
William O’Brien – Absolutely.
Looked for dead gulls in other areas and found many more in this
area.
Comr. Denny – When I visited out
there and saw the rendering plant, all around were nothing but piles
of crushed concrete and cement trucks being loaded. If I was looking
for a toxin, I would look at the concrete dust.
William O’Brien – Asked the
scientists about that. They said it wasn’t a problem in the air. If
it gets in the water it can kill fish but it hasn’t been found in
birds. Not enough of it gets into the air. Offer of a tour to any
Commissioner. Will also give contact of person doing the testing when
funding comes through.
Alfred Colby - Fish and Wildlife - Has
been a consultant with Will who has been doing an excellent job.
Comr. Hemphill – Can you explain
incidental deaths such as at Pier 45 where birds are run over.
Alfred Colby – If it is not
intentional not much can be done about it.
Comr. Hemphill – If it happens over
and over like oil on birds?
Alfred Colby – With oil, mitigation
is involved. With cars it is different or when fishing for a certain
species and pick up something else. Accidents happen.
Comr. Aldridge – Without specific
laws for certain things there is nothing to enforce as in incidental
takes. If a problem is severe enough there should be a way that can
be addressed and become a regulation. Is that one of your functions
as an organization is to address those things? Or do you just try to
enforce what is already on the books?
Alfred Colby – At Fish &
Wildlife, we have the biological side and the law enforcement side.
Being on the law enforcement side I enforce existing regulations.
Until one location is identified as causing the problem there is not
much we can do.
Kelle Karmarcik – Have found 50 birds
since Jan 1, 2011, 14 adults and 36 juveniles. Two of the birds were
oiled. Oiled birds have a good chance of recovering.
Shows slides of oiled birds.
The IBRRC website has a video on how
oil affects birds.
Comr. Hemphill – Why are there still
oiled birds when it was supposed to be a resolved problem?
Kelle Karmarcik – Unsure.
Shows slides of necropsies of gulls.
Mold in lungs had started to eat into
the bones of the bird. Takes 5 to 10 days to die from first exposure.
It looks like bread mold, all through out their air sacs and lungs.
City will have to step in when test
results come back. May not be solvable but the oiling is avoidable.
If the barrel is open, cover it.
Comr. Hemphill – William O’Brien,
is that something you can follow up on?
William O’Brien – They have always
been cooperative when I stopped by unannounced.
Comr. Hemphill – It looks like the
incidents of birds with oil are going up again.
William O’Brien – It does look
there is a spike. Maybe someone left a lid off of a barrel. It looks
like it has stopped though. Then next few weeks will tell.
Comr. Hemphill – It looks like they
were getting into a vat since they were covered with oil.
William O’Brien – They don’t need
to get much oil on them. Learned at IBRRC that even a spot will cause
them to lose their body heat and can kill them. Half that get
significant amount of oil will die.
Comr. Hemphill – There shouldn’t be
a spike. This shouldn’t have happened
William O’Brien – A couple of years
ago a couple of gulls landed in the chimpanzee cage at the zoo and
the monkeys killed them. That shouldn’t have happened either. Their
cage should have been completely closed off. Birds are killed at
Pier 45 daily. Maybe trucks shouldn’t go through there. How can you
keep gulls out of a rendering plant all the time? Recology uses a lot
of hazing techniques without 100% success. I took this job because I
care about animals. Darling has tried to do the best they can. Gulls
have called winged rats because they get very single-minded about a
food source and will try again and again. The only way to be
completely effective is to encapsulate the entire facility and have
two doors to get in and out. Our very existence here causes the death
of many animals everyday. Where do we draw the line? Darling is doing
a lot to keep the birds away but 100’s try to get to the food.
Western gulls, by their nature, are aggressive in getting what they
want. Receive calls asking why I haven’t been prosecuting and
taking them to court. Have not found an intent nor negligence. No
laws are being broken. State Penal Code section 4 states the law will
be enforced by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. If
the scientists do find any wrong doing, will sit down with agent
Colby and decide if it should go to State or Federal court and
prosecute accordingly.
Comr. Denny – Did you see any bird
carcasses that were oiled?
William O’Brien – No, but at first
I didn’t know what I was looking at. Oiled birds can just look like
they are wet.
5. A) Public Comment
Eric Brooks – SF Green Party –
Disagrees strongly with Mr. O’Brien’s views on Darling. Darling
in Minnesota was convicted of felony charges for destroying an entire
river ecosystem. Darling processes carcasses from factory-farmed
animals. No birds should be able to get in. It is toxic material.
Aspergillosis is not the problem. It is a combination of many
factors. Global warming, pesticides, etc. Any oil on the birds
weakens their system making them susceptible to Aspergillus. We
should look at this as a systemic issue and not let Darling off the
hook.
David Gavrich – Operates three
companies down at the Port. One is called SF Bay Railroad, first
railroad in the country to be run on bio-deisel . Second is Waste
Solutions Group, bring in containerized soils and transfer that to
railcars. Third company is City Grazing, which is a herd of 60 goats.
Use them in instead of herbicides in the rail yards. A reporter from
the Examiner called the other day about the gull story and the staff
member picking up the phone pointed towards Recology and Darling. He
shouldn’t have done that. There is no evidence of what is causing
the gull problem. Interested in hearing the outcome of this. Anyone
is welcome to visit the railroad or visit the goats.
Jim Hodgin – Frequent visitor to Pier
94. Glad this issue is being looked into.
Richard Drecshler – Reading from
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a Federal law, is the only law that
protects the majority of birds in the US. “Unlawful to pursue,
hunt, take, capture, or kill any of the birds listed under a
protected species. It doesn’t say deliberate or not. Here birds are
dying due to business practices of certain companies. Bird deaths are
predictable versus accidental.
Public Comment closed
Comr. Hemphill – Unsure about sending
the proposed letter. Perhaps just an update letter describing what
has gone on and what we are waiting for.
Comr. Stephens – That could be
included in the Quarterly Report which comes out next month.
Comr. Hemphill – It could be both, a
letter and in the Quarterly Report.
Comr. Aldridge – We should report on
this attractive hazard issue in general, not a specific company. No
one likes rendering plants but everyone likes composting yet either
one of these attractive hazards needs to be looked at as the source
of dying gulls.
Comr. Hemphill – Can we approve my
drafting a letter about the situation in general?
Comr. Stephens – It is confusing so I
would like to see the letter before sending it off. Maybe next month.
Comr. Hemphill – We know it is fairly
straight forward about the Aspergillosis investigation and certain
areas that are attractive hazards.
Comr. Stephens – What do you want to
be done about these attractive hazards? Do you want to inform the
Dept of the Environment and have them investigate?
Comr. Hemphill – The Board should be
aware of these attractive hazards exemplified by this situation of
the gulls at Pier 94.
Comr. Denny – When you send a letter
to the Board, are you requesting they do something?
Comr. Hemphill – Nothing specifically
but that they just be aware of the issue.
Comr. Denny – If it just in the
Quarterly Report they know that we are on it.
Comr. Hemphill – In the Quarterly
Report it is just one small paragraph versus a whole letter.
Comr. Denny – I don’t know what we
would put in the letter that would not be in the Quarterly Report.
Comr. Brooks – In a letter, we are
asking for a desired outcome while in the Quarterly Report it is just
informative.
Comr. Hemphill – Sally did a nice job
on the last Quarterly Report. If this issue could be detailed to some
extent of what is going on that would be OK.
6. New Business
A) Discussion and possible
action to send a letter to the Board urging them to oppose the
Preferred Alternative to the new Dog Management Plan, DEIS, in the
GGNRA because of potential negative impacts to City parks and dog
behavior.
Comr. Stephens – Double checked with
our City Attorney if whether or not we had any jurisdiction on this
issue. The answer was yes except for the impact on city parks. So a
letter will not include impacts on City parks. For background, in
1972 the
GGNRA was created to provide needed
recreational open space and to expand as much as possible
recreational opportunities. In 1975, almost all SF ocean-front
property was deeded to the GGNRA being told by William Whalen,
superintendent of the GGNRA , the purpose was to preserve the general
character and present use of various parks that could be affected by
Prop F. Prop F was whether or not to give the City’s land to the
GGNRA. In 1979 the GGNRA established a pet policy that allowed dogs
to be walked off-leash under voice control on less than 1% of its
lands. They did this after determining there would be little impact
on park resources or other park visitors. Courts have subsequently
ruled that this is the legal management pet policy and continues
through today. Now the DEIS wants to change that. It would cut
current off-leash dog space by roughly 90% overall . 75% in SF. Have
made maps of current and proposed limited use of off-leash areas in
SF. Areas show significant reductions. Also, the poison pill aspect
that if there is not enough compliance to these new restrictions, it
would automatically and permanently change to the next most
restrictive level. Off-leash areas become on-leash. On-leash becomes
no dogs at all. There would be no public comment on this change. It
is likely there would be very little off-leash left in the GGNRA with
in a few years thanks to this policy. Right now only 1% of the GGNRA
is off-leash. If the plan goes through the available area would be
1/10 of 1% for an activity that is enjoyed by thousands and tens of
thousands of people every day. People with dogs are not going away.
If they can’t go to the GGNRA, they will go to City parks. City
parks are significantly smaller than the GGNRA which would lead to
overcrowding. City off-leash parks are already overused and
under-maintained. A sub-committee of the Board will hold hearings on
April 11 asking what the City’s public comment should be. The DEIS
is massive and it is unreasonable to expect this Commission of
volunteers to weigh in on pros and cons to the report. There were two
areas that were not addressed in the DEIS that will have major
impacts. One, is dog behavior as a result of such a significant loss
of off-leash space. People will not be able to exercise their dogs
adequately. Behavior issues will also come up due to over-crowding in
City parks. More behavior problems in dogs will lead to more dogs
being surrendered to City shelters. Have invited several speakers to
speak on this issue.
Jennifer Scarlett – SFSPCA – The
SFSPCA is strongly against the draft proposal. It is horribly flawed.
They don’t take into consideration the impact on the local
environment in SF. Having animals in peoples lives is ancient and
natural. The GGNRA recognized this in 1979. Tens of thousands of
people use the GGNRA everyday for solitude as well as socialization.
As a dog owner, I go there every week and see the same community of
people. The people in this room that are against the DEIS are
responsible dog owners who keep their dogs under voice control. We
not only use these areas but cherish the sensitive areas in the park.
Degradation of this planet has more to do with over-population than
just people walking with their dogs. Know what benefits exercise can
have on the health and trainability of the dog. The quality of life
in SF for dog owners is like no other city which is due to the GGNRA.
SF is not like NYC, where there are small enclosed gravel areas that
arevery crowded. As a clinician, when a new dog owner comes in
concerned about their dog’s trainability or anxiety disorders, the
first thing I prescribe is exercise. Access to the GGNRA is crucial
in the SPCA’s mission to adopt out every treatable healthy animal
that comes into our shelter system. Hope that this Commission will
ask the Supervisors to recommend they relook at this proposal and
include the community.
Comr. Stephens – Because I am
personally involved in advocating for this item, I’ve asked the
vice-chair to take over chairing the meeting for this item. Trish
King from Marin Humane was invited but couldn’t make it. She sent a
letter. I summarize, “Dogs have exercise and social needs that
cannot be met solely by on-leash walking. They must have aerobic
exercise playing in large areas can accomplish that goal. Interacting
with other off-leash dogs improves their socialization. Will
depriving them of these off-leash areas lead to behavior issues? Very
likely that behavior issues will increase dramatically. When dogs
cannot get the exercise they need they get become more destructive,
vocal, and occasionally aggressive. This could lead to more dogs
being surrendered to shelters already overcrowded with unwanted pets.
Can normal dog parks fill the dogs needs? Unlike open space or beach
areas which encourage dogs and their guardians to actually move, dog
parks discourage walking and inadvertently encourage inappropriate
interactions such as territoriality and the formation of packs. The
reduction of open space accessibility will directly cause the
overpopulation of dog parks. This will lead to many more incidents of
aggression with dogs and their guardians. The GGNRA restrictions will
backfire in SF as guardians with dogs try and find friendly places to
interact. Caretakers of parks and recreation areas have an obligation
to make areas available to all types of people and their pets and
not restrict a huge portion of the tax paying population. In 2007
Jean Donaldson was head of the dog training programs at the SPCA. She
spoke at this Commission about aggression and off-leash. A couple of
highlights from her talk were, “….there is no evidence that
allowing dogs off-leash for play activities increases
aggression…every dog behaviorist in the US believes that off-leash
access decreases aggression. Off-leash play has proven to not
be a factor in dog bites. The safest dogs are the ones that frequent
off-leash dog parks. People that take the time to walk or drive to an
off-leash dog park tend not to be derelict in other areas of dog
guardianship, such as dog-training, socialization, and appropriate
containment.” Kathy Santo, a nationally known behaviorist said “….
It is good and necessary for healthy dogs to play off-leash in safe
areas while supervised by their owners. An exercised, socialized dog
is a happy, well-adjusted dog.”
Sherri Franklin – Muttville Rescue –
Was on the ACWC for six years. While serving, same issue had come up.
Attended hearings at the GGNRA. 80% of the comments were pro
off-leash. They had asked for public comments in order to build their
dog plan. They used none of the comments that were heard at that
time. Was upset by that. Dogs need off-leash areas for socialization
and reduce aggressiveness. As a rescue, visits ACC often. Refuses to
take dogs that are aggressive. Aggressive dogs can also jump on
people on the street. Sad to see dogs in the kennels. Will see a lot
more dogs if they can’t go off-leash. Knows those numbers will go
up.
Cerena Zutis – Has been a dog trainer
for 22 years and a certified behavior counselor for dogs. Dogs need
exercise. Most of my behavior cases are due to improper or inadequate
socialization. The cure is exercise. Exercise is beneficial for dogs
and their guardians. Lives in San Mateo County. Off-leash areas have
been closed due to overuse and complaints from local people. Too many
dogs in open spaces. Used to have a sense community when out with
other dog walkers. No longer because of closure of off-leash spaces.
Not being able to exercise one’s dogs leads to stress and health
problems in their guardians. Off-leash allows dogs to socialize
appropriately. Goes to Fort Funston now for exercise and a sense of
community. People with pets have quite a bit of disposable income
that is spent in SF.
Kim Durney – Grateful Dog Rescue –
Supports comments of previous speakers. Thanks to adequate exercise
at Fort Funston and Crissy Field, SF has a very low rate of dog-rated
problems compared to other cities. Currently 99% of GGNRA lands are
off limit. Under DEIS preferred alternative that remaining 1% will be
reduced by 90%. In SF the reduction will be 75%. How does that
constitute shared use of public recreational areas for the large
percentage of SF residents who use these areas? Questions if the
GGNRA gave any thought to SF residents and the impact on City parks
and if the negative impact on dog’s health was even considered.
Without adequate access to Fort Funston and Crissy Field, 1000’s of
SF dog owners are faced with two unacceptable choices. Deprive dogs
of the exercise they need or use the City’s limited supply of
off-leash dog parks. Too many dogs in inadequate space to exercise
will result in behavior and health problems as well as increased
altercations between dogs and other park users without dogs. This
will result in increased surrenders to ACC adding to dogs already
surrendered due to the lousy economy. Increased surrenders will also
result in increased demand for rescues already struggling with
current numbers. Demand will drop because people will not adopt as
much due to off-leash opportunities becoming more limited. More dogs
with fewer options will result in more dogs being killed. SF has not
had to kill unwanted dogs as have other municipalities. The DEIS
must consider this negative impact. If not, the Board of Supervisors
must make sure they do. The Board is looking to ACWC for guidance.
Please give them the right message.
Beverly Ulbrich – dog behaviorist –
Agrees with previous speakers comments. Confining dogs to small areas
fosters frustration, confrontation, and even spreads disease. In
small spaces dogs are literally on top of each other. Dogs on GGNRA
must be under voice control in open spaces. In fenced off-leash areas
they don’t have to be under voice control. Fostering voice control
is helpful for the safety of dogs when they might escape in other
situations. Open off-leash space is best for health and wellbeing of
all dogs.
Comr. Stephens – The reason behind
this agenda item was not to take a position on what is the best
alternative in the DEIS. But that they did not look at dog impact and
increased surrenders and negative behavior problems. Since they
didn’t do that I’m asking us to send a letter to the Board of
Supervisors that they oppose the preferred alternative.
Comr. Gerrie – Felt like tonight, was
the Dog Commission, not the Animal Commission. We didn’t hear from
anyone with a different point of view. We didn’t hear from the
GGNRA. It was all on one side. I have a few things to say to balance
things out. The purpose of the DEIS is to provide a clear enforceable
policy to determine the manner and extent of dog use in appropriate
areas of the park. The following objectives would be promoted. To
preserve and protect natural and cultural resources and natural
processes. To provide a variety of visitor experiences. Improve
visitor and employee safety. Reduce user conflicts. Maintain park
resources and values for future generations. Dismissing this draft
out of hand does not take these factors into consideration. I am
disturbed by this agenda item. First, there is a process in place for
the public to voice their opinions. We are an advisory body to the
Board. In spite of what our City Atty said. They have no jurisdiction
over Federal lands. Even if a Supervisor requested us to review the
matter, it is not our job. Second, the language in the agenda item I
find inflammatory and biased towards dogs. It creates fear in dog
owners of worst case scenarios of dogs having to be euthanized
because of behavior problems due to not being able to run free in
Federal parks. Where is a study to back these claims? Many parts of
this agenda item are biased and without merit. It is impossible to
reach consensus on this issue. We have very different fundamental
moral views. Some feel it is their right to run their dogs without
restrictions. The government has no right to tell them otherwise.
Others see that other groups and the park’s wildlife also have a
right to enjoy the park without dogs running free. The NPS has worked
for years to produce over 2000 pages to come up with their
recommendations. I cannot and will not suppose that listening to a
discussion tonight will change my mind to support the DEIS, even
though the Preferred Alternative recommendations still allow for the
GGNRA to be out of compliance with the rest of the National Park
system that does not allow any dogs off-leash.
Comr. Hemphill – The GGNRA is Federal
land and not under the stewardship of SF. Our national parks are for
people all over the US not just SF. A family from Nebraska has a much
right to it as a family on 48th Ave. The Nation Parks are
paid by our Federal income taxes. They are mandated to protect our
national resources for future generations. Our Commission represents
all animals, not just one. The GGNRA provides habitat, to feed,
roost, and life for many animals. The park is their home, they are
dependant on the seaside habitat. They have no owners to speak up for
them. The GGNRA is their home as they habitat dwindles. Our
Commission needs to be a voice for these animals. There is a process
in place for public comment on how people feel about the DEIS. The
report is over 2000 pages and cost taxpayer $. It should not be
treated as a light weight document with no consequence. Comments may
be given in public meetings or in writing. This is not the
appropriate venue.
Comr. Stephens – The GGNRA was
invited but chose not to come. It is unfair to call us the dog
commission. The previous agenda item was on birds and Darling was not
invited. Did not want to discuss the relative merits of where dogs
should be on or off-leash. This is a period of public comment. The
Board will likely take a position one way or another. It is entirely
within our purview to say there is a significant aspect of this whole
issue which is the potentially negative impact on dogs not mentioned
anywhere in the DEIS. Because it wasn’t considered, we cannot
consider the Preferred Alternative because it wasn’t based on all
the information they should have had. The GGNRA is Federal land but
lies within an urban region. It was created for urban recreation. The
discussions must be balanced between recreation and restoration. The
GGNRA has asked in all their meetings what issues did they not
look at. As part of the NEPA process they need to go back and take
into consideration aspects they did not at first consider. The
purpose of this agenda item is to make the point that this is an
important aspect, the issue of dog behavior which is an animal
welfare issue as well as the impact on shelters. We spent 2 years
talking about that issue. It is important to the City and to its
residents. The Board would like to know what are the issues they
didn’t look at.
Comr. Aldridge - Our role on this
Commission doesn’t preclude us taking a position on one single
animal. Dogs do play an important part in animal welfare in this
City. Therefore it is in our purview to address this issue. Have been
around for many years and am aware of the history of when the City
handed over the lands to the Federal government. It was important
when that happened, it didn’t result in something that was
undesirable. This is a unique Federal area with unique rules. One of
which was allowing off-leash dogs under control. Granting that
exception has been a thorn in their side ever since. Felt they would
eventually decide to eliminate that exemption completely. Should ask
the Supervisors to make sure that all factors are considered.
Comr. Katz – Issue was brought up at
an ACC volunteer meeting. Was asked how this would affect the welfare
of dogs in SF. Answered that ACC has a duty to consider the welfare
of all animals not just dogs. The GGNRA has not considered other
impacts, not just on dogs. It is not a complete plan. We do have a
responsibility to look and see if the DEIS works for the City. ACC is
concerned if the plan looks at all multi-use possibilities. Other
concerned City agencies are getting together to discuss how this will
impact them and advise the Board as well. Have serious concern about
pieces of this plan. Especially the enforceability of the proposed
policy. The 75% threshold for compliance that, if exceeded, will
revert to on-leash only or no dogs at all feels like a setup for
failure. We have an opportunity to let the GGNRA know there is not a
complete picture here.
Comr. Hemphill – Sorry that not all
animals are in this picture. People need to look at the report if
they want to care about more than just one animal. The dog laws that
do exist are not obeyed. Obedience has been a problem. It is not a
poison pill but a compliance. We need compliance. Dogs are off-leash
in on-leash areas in the City.
Comr. Katz – Pushing dogs into City
parks will have an impact on wildlife there as well. ACC is concerned
on concerned about all animal interactions. Also, the irresponsible
dog owners who don’t clean up after their dogs. As to
irresponsible people, there are enforcement and compliance measure
that don’t require such exaggerated measures.
Comr. Hemphill – Has compliance been
a problem from the dog community?
Comr. Katz – The Federal park police
were unsure on how to enforce some of the laws at their disposal. In
City parks there has been an effort to strike a balance between
off-leash areas and multi-use areas.
Comr. Brooks – Just because people
here are speaking for their dogs doesn’t mean they don’t care
about other animals in the parks. Doesn’t believe that is mutually
exclusive.
Comr. Hemphill – There are more and
more dogs using these areas. There is no way they will not have an
increasing impact and cause more wildlife problems. Wildlife does not
have a voice here. There are a lot of dog voices here. I don’t hear
anyone asking to actually look at this report that took years to work
out to see what they looked at and what they were concerned about. Am
not comfortable listening for another couple of hours listening to
people say they want to exercise their dog. Can we just have a show
of hands?
Comr. Brooks – We always allow public
comment. We are here to give everyone a voice.
Comr. Hemphill – Agreed. It would be
nice if testimony was not repetitive.
Comr. Stephens – You cannot tell
people what they can and cannot say.
Comr. Brooks – The DEIS will impact
the City because people will go to smaller areas in SF such as Bernal
instead of Fort Funston.
Comr. Hemphill – The best resource
area is the one they choose. This is a complicated topic. The impacts
are hypothetical at this point. We are getting more and more dogs in
the City.
Comr. Stephens – That is a bad thing?
Comr. Gerrie – This issue is divisive
on our Commission. A couple of years ago I petitioned, gathering
signatures, for Prop 2, the Humane Farm Animal proposition, at Fort
Funston. It was very easy to gather signatures there. People were
very supportive. In petitioning, I had to have each person put down
their address and what county they lived in. Less than half lived in
SF. Also talked with the ranger while I was there. He said he spent
all his time emptying out the trash cans of dog crap. He also picked
up the carcasses of dead animals killed by dogs. The GGNRA is
looking for the best way to maintain and manage their lands. This
plan includes other counties. Still feel this is not an SF issue.
This is a waste of time and the issue is divisive. I am not in
support of this agenda item nor want to stay to listen to the public
in opposing this plan.
Comr. Brooks – Ask that everyone
respect all the speakers in the room.
Comr. Stephens – The NEPA process is
an environmental impact statement. The types of environments they
look at are natural, cultural, social environments and the effect on
surrounding communities. Or, how it impacts the City.
Comr. Katz – The fact, stated by
Comr. Gerrie, that many dog owners drive into the City to Fort
Funston is another indicator that we don’t have a complete picture.
Comr. Brooks – This is a divisive
issue. Some issues that come up at our Commission are divisive and
the vote is not unanimous.
Comr. Aldridge – We should all be
here to vote on this to weigh in on it.
Comr. Hemphill – Most of our votes
have been unanimous
Comr. Brooks – It’s also OK to not
have an unanimous vote.
Comr. Stephens – I intended to put
forth a motion based on the agenda item.
6 A) Public Comment
Keith McCallister – Addressing dogs
impacts on wildlife at the GGNRA. Dogs have no impact on Bank
Swallows at Fort Funston. The DEIS claims that preserving off-leash
dogs would have “mild to moderate impact on the Bank Swallows
because dogs would dig into the sand, collapsing burrows, flushing
birds from nests, and causing landslides.” There is no evidence
that any of these things happen at Fort Funston. Bank Swallow
monitoring from 1993 to 2006 in the DEIS, documents that very few
dogs were observed around the closed area of the Bank Swallows. Three
dogs were observed between 2001 and 2006. That’s it. Yet the GGNRA
makes that a continuing impact. No one has seen any dog doing what
the DEIS says could happen. Speculation on what might happen
versus what does happen is not science. It should not be used to
eliminate dog walking in the GGNRA.
Andrea Buffa – Sunset resident and
environmentalist – Walks two dogs at Fort Funston. Supports action
from Commission. Has looked over the DEIS. There are no Federal
endangered species at Fort Funston yet banning off-leash for most of
that space. Only 7% of complaints are against dogs. 93% against
humans. The DEIS will have a seriously harmful impact on dogs in the
Bay Area. The DEIS does not have serious environmental concerns but
is a pretext to get rid of recreational users of the park. The City
should go against the proposal.
Elana Makoff – Has service animal
adopted from ACC. Adopted her because knowing there were plenty of
places to take her off-leash. Diagnosed with cancer 4 years ago, was
in a weakened state. Only reason to get out was to take her dog to
the beach. Was able for her dog to sit quietly in this room for two
hours because she had an hour of off-leash of exercise before coming.
Manita Bulman – San Mateo resident –
More San Mateo residents will be coming to GGNRA parks because San
Mateo County parks are becoming more and more on-leash. Has looked at
the DEIS. Appalled by the lack of standards in it.
Joanne Scott – Has been an SF
resident for 45 years. Has walked almost daily on the beach with her
dog. Has had 5 dogs in that time. Almost impossible to get adequate
exercise for a dog on-leash. Believes they must be under voice
control. Two of her five dogs had to be on-leash because they could
not be voice-control trained. Urges Commission to not approve the
GGNRA plan. Lives near Stern Grove. Many bird watchers come to Stern
Grove to birdwatch. It is close to Fort Funston. If more dogs come to
Stern Grove how will that effect the birds there?
Vicki Tiernan – Currently the
off-leash community has access to less than 1% of GGNRA lands. This
proposal would cut that back by 90%. Need to consider the impact of
more people and dogs on wildlife in City parks. The DEIS needs to
consider this. Supports recommendation to oppose the DEIS.
Samir Ghosh – Questions compliance
requirements in DEIS. Several concerns about the DEIS report.
Bruce Wolfe- Appreciates all
Commissioners staying to listen to public comment. Has had a service
dog for 11 years. He needs to get off-leash exercise so he can
continue to be of service. The GGNRA needs to consider any changes in
their policies to neighboring communities. They haven’t done that.
Teal Heise – Dog walker in City
parks. Sees impact in GG Park to wildlife if increase of dog walkers.
Supports mandate to keep GGNRA areas as they have been. Should not
lose off-leash areas based on unscientific studies and lack of
standards.
Eric Heise – Inevitable that, as the
plan is written now, there will be no dogs allowed at Fort Funston.
People and dogs will go to SF parks causing over crowding, causing
more conflicts and calls to SFPD and ACC. Fort Funston is to be used
by people that live near there. It was given by SF to be used as
it had been used before. People like to walk their dogs off-leash
there. Opposes the DEIS plan.
Corey Evans – Animal law attorney –
Has done NEPA challenges before against the NPS. Doesn’t like the
reduction in off-leash areas. But supports not sending a
letter because it makes no sense. The Board already has a Land Use
Subcommittee meeting set up for April 11 to look at this issue. The
proposition to send a letter is based on the assumption that all
these off-leash people will go to City parks causing overcrowding,
causing dogs to become stressed and ill-behaved and eventual
euthanasia. That assumes a high impact of City parks that
can’t be mitigated. That hearing hasn’t even happened yet. The
hearing on whether City parks can handle the impact is on April 11.
This Commission shouldn’t try to shortcut the Board’s hearing.
Most of you haven’t even skimmed the DEIS because large portions
talk about indirect impact of adjacent parks. Every category of
impact in reducing off-leash areas on adjacent parks is looked at.
Water quality, soil degradation, human use of the environment,
special status animals. They are considering the impacts. If
you need to send a letter, you need to say what is wrong with
what the current plan. They are only supposed to consider the
reasonably foreseeable impacts. You would have to prove that
dog euthanasia is reasonably foreseeable. Logic doesn’t show that.
Steve Hooker – SF resident since
1973. Currently a dog walker. Smaller space for off-leash will mean
more conflicts. People will go to City parks. McLaren and Stern Grove
will get the most because they are big. Smaller parks will become
unbearable. Should send a letter opposing the DEIS.
J.R. Fleming – Documentary film maker
– Working on a film about pet over-population in the US. Has two
dogs and has visited different dog parks in the City. Never seen any
problems. Wants to keep it that way. SF is a great place for dogs.
Supports sending a letter.
Renee Pittin – Supports sending the
letter. GGNRA, 2001 to 2006 figures show that disturbance of wildlife
is 96% human and 2% from dogs. This is the appropriate venue for us
to voice our concerns of the consequences of removing access for
thousands of dogs.
Shirley Wayne – Looked over the DEIS.
Found no mention of human impact, cigarette butts, plastic bottles .
Supports sending the letter.
Susan Blanchard – Believes this is
the correct forum to express opinions about the DEIS. People are able
to adopt dogs in SF because they can afford a dog walker and to go to
off-leash areas. Reducing off-leash areas will have a drastic impact.
It will increase costs from dog walkers and make that service out of
reach for many people.
Lisa Vittori – Problem with DEIS is
no one advocated for dog walking in that report. Has never been a
fair process. Has gone to many hearings concerning dogs but was
ignored. Wants fairness in the DEIS.
Nancy Stafford – Co-director SF
Professional Dog Walkers Association – The DEIS will have a direct
negative effect on clients both dog and human. There are apx. 10,000
dog visits a day across the GGNRA. There are 178,000 dogs in SF. We
need to share the space. The more dispersion the better. Only 45 dog
bites were reported over a two year period. A very small percentage
of 10,000 visits a day.
Public comment closed
Comr. Aldridge – Moves to vote on
Comr. Stephens motion to send a letter to reject the alternative
plan.
Seconded by Comr. Stephens
Comr. Stephens – Removed a reason for
DEIS rejection is the impact on City parks. Only reason to oppose the
preferred alternative is possible negative behavior of dog behavior
caused by severe restrictions of off-leash and potential for
increased surrender of dogs.
Comr. Hemphill – Even though no one
has read the management plan through? We are voting to oppose it?
Comr. Stephens – It’s not in the
plan. They don’t discuss impacts on dog behavior.
Comr. Page – Comfortable with asking
the Supervisors to include these other issues. Not comfortable with
asking them to approve or not approve the DEIS because have not read
it. Want to clarify what we are voting on.
Comr. Stephens – Concern is that
GGNRA didn’t consider it. From past experience the GGNRA will say
they will consider the impact but won’t actually do it. If we ask
the City to say they will not support it unless that is
included in the discussion.
Comr. Aldridge – The motion is to
send a letter to the Board urging them to oppose the preferred
alternative of the DEIS but your dropping the ‘because’ part of
the impact to City parks.
Comr. Page – Sherri Franklin had said
that on an earlier DEIS plan the NPS didn’t use any of the public
comments at all. Unless we can provide concrete evidence backing what
we are saying, they will not listen to this either. If it can proved
this is likely they will ignore it. This recommendation will only be
symbolic unless we have something more to show them.
Comr. Stephens – The testimonial of
the dog behaviorists, the SPCA, and the rescue groups understand
behavior problems and what causes it.
Comr. Page – Have worked on these
type of issues before and, tonight, did not hear anything concrete
enough. It will be a battle to get them to look at the indirect
effects.
Comr. Hemphill – Are there scientific
studies with control groups?
Comr. Stephens – Dog trainers and dog
behaviorists are united in understanding the value of off-leash
recreation. There has been some studies cited by Jean Donaldson in
2007 ofnwhat causes dog aggression.
Comr. Hemphill – But no control
groups? It is an opinion?
Comr. Stephens – It is both.
Comr. Russo – Do you have more info
about the April 11 Board of Supervisor meeting?
Comr. Stephens – Supervisor Weiner
has called for a hearing on the impacts of the plan. I assume he’ll
ask ACC and Rec & Park to come for their views on the Preferred
Alternative because that is the one the GGNRA is saying they want.
Comr. Hemphill - It is considered to
be an average. It is a balance between things as they are now and no
dogs.
Comr. Stephens – No. It is what they
had decided are their priorities – what they want. If they don’t
want dogs in a location they’ll say so. They may not have evidence
to support that. The Preferred Alternative is not an average, it is
what they want in the end.
Comr. Hemphill – It is an average.
Comr. Katz – Each location has 5
options from no change to no dogs. For each location they chose an
option. It is not in the middle for all of them. The Land Use and
Economic Development Subcommittee is where this will be heard. They
City is looking at a whole range of impacts and whether they have
been addressed. The Commission is only looking at the impact to dogs.
Don’t know enough about the NEPA process to know if that will be a
consideration.
Comr. Stephens – Don’t know if
Supervisor Weiner has a specific resolution that he wants the Board
to vote on. He has expressed concerns about the Preferred Alternative
and how restrictive the off-leash by decreasing by 90%. A lot of
different groups will be there. Audubon, dog groups, the NPS. The
City departments will probably be the only ones specifically invited.
Comr. Katz – The Board will want a
process that is complete as it had asked for before when this issue
came up in 2001. Not convinced that the DEIS, at 2400 pages, is
complete.
Comr. Stephens – It is important to
give input to the Board before or after the April 11 hearing.
Comr. Russo – What would happen if
this Commission does not send a recommendation?
Comr. Stephens – It would indicate to
the Board that this is an issue they don’t need to worry about.
Comr. Denny – The rational given by
NPS for the DEIS is weak.
Comr. Wayne – Unclear what category
your recommendation would address. Biological resources, health and
safety, etc.? Where do issues around behavior and euthanasia fit?
Comr. Stephens – The category is
around community. Dog groups have contacted NEPA lawyers and have
said that is a legitimate concern for surrounding communities.
Comr. Wayne – What is the source of
the 75% and 90% numbers cited in the agenda item? Were those numbers
in the DEIS?
Comr. Stephens – No, they came from
looking at the maps in the DEIS and looking at the amount of change
in off-leash that is proposed.
Comr. Hemphill – Those areas now, are
they legal off-leash areas?
Comr. Stephens – Those areas are
legal according to the 1979 Pet Policy. It is also in option A of no
change. All legal off-leash.
Roll call for motion to send a letter
recommending rejecting the DEIS Preferred alternative plan.
Yes, Comrs. Aldridge, Stephens, Page,
Russo, Brooks
No, Comrs. Gerrie & Hemphill
Comr. Brooks – Motion passes, 5 to 2
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for
February 10, 2011
No Commission nor public comment
Minutes approved unanimously
4. Chairperson’s report and
opening remarks
No report from the Chair
7. General Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – Would like there not
to be fighting on these issues. We are the same demographic. Everyone
should have an equal voice. Would like to start from a whole
different place.
Public comment closed
8. Calendar items and task
allotments
Comr. Stephens – We will be bringing
back up the pet store ban and the pet-friendly rentals in future
meetings.
Comr. Katz – Sandra Brunell, from
ACC, would like to present to the April meeting a plan for a database
of people convicted of animal abuse or neglect.
No public comment
Adjournment 8:50 PM
Respectfully submitted by Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary
