City Looks at Taking Some GGNRA Land

By Carol Dimmick

The level of rancor in the fierce debate over whether dog owners should be required to leash their pets on federal park land reached new heights in March when SF Supervisor Leland Yee accused park Superintendent Brian O'Neill of going back on his word by ordering park rangers at Fort Funston to ticket unleashed dogs.

Yee, who sponsored legislation to explore taking back land the city deeded to the federal government in 1972, appeared angry over what he called O'Neill's "hollow words."

According to Yee, O'Neill made a commitment months ago in Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office to continue the Golden Gate National Recreation Area's (GGNRA) policy of not enforcing a federal regulation requiring pets to leashed.

"They (park officials) act like a foreign entity. They do things unilaterally and that arrogance is something that I am not going to tolerate," Yee said.

While O'Neill agreed there was an increase in tickets issued during the past few months, he declined to comment on Yee's statements, saying that he had no desire to get into a verbal debate with the supervisor.

"I'm not going to take the bait. I want to work with the city and have an honest community dialogue," he said.

However, Christine Powell, a public affairs spokesperson for the GGNRA, blamed dog owners for the recent rash of tickets.

"The dog walking community, in essence, forced some of our rangers to take action. They said 'I am not going to put my dog on a leash. Take me to court.' They wanted to go to court," Powell said.

Controversy Sparked By Decision To Drop Off-Leash Policy
The controversy started last year when the GGNRA, the administrative arm of the National Park Service, rescinded an off-leash dog policy it adopted in 1979 arguing that it could not override an existing federal regulation requiring pets to be on leashes.

The decision enraged many pet owners but found support among environmentalists, who complain that unfettered dogs are responsible for trampling native vegetation, disturbing wildlife and attacking park visitors.

The 600 acres of park land that is the subject of the current controversy was deeded to the National Park Service in 1972 when San Francisco was financially strapped and eager to shed the burden of maintaining the property.

According to the terms of an agreement signed by both parties, the city retained the Marina Green and a waterfront park containing two yacht harbors, which was income-producing and cost effective.

Within Aquatic Park the city kept one acre of waterfront land that contained two active private swimming and rowing clubs.

Although subsequent land transfers were made, the bulk of the property that remains under federal control today includes Lands End, Sutro Heights, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston.

GGNRA Requesting Comments on Off-Leash Dog Policy From Public
The breakdown in communication between local and federal officials comes at a time when the GGNRA is engaged in a rulemaking exercise aimed at determining the federal government's future policy on recreational use of park lands.

On April 6, at its Fort Mason headquarters, the GGNRA holds the last in a series of public meetings that will eventually lead to a recommendation that could mean changing the regulation. The public can comment in writing until April 12.

O'Neill said he intends to make sure the rulemaking process is safeguarded by appointing only unbiased members of his staff to review the public's written comments and make a recommendation.

"We want a process that has integrity," he explained.

Even if the GGNRA decides to change the existing regulation, policymakers in Washington, D.C. will not be eager to embrace a new policy that could open up debates in other parts of the country.

O'Neill, however, maintains he will support whatever recommendation is made on the local level.

"We haven't been reluctant to fight for changes on other issues," he said.

City Gathering Evidence For Possible Lawsuit
While federal officials are engaged a bureaucratic rulemaking process, city officials are gathering evidence for a lawsuit.

Correspondence between Deputy City Attorney Mariam Morely and O'Neill reveals that the city is laying the foundation for its case by contesting numerous decisions made by the federal agency that restrict public access to park land, including the closure of portions of Fort Funston, the erection of fences in those areas and the removal of pavement from the Sunset Trail.

The outcome of the rulemaking process will likely determine whether city officials make good on their threat to institute legal proceedings to take back the 600 acres of park land San Francisco deeded to the federal government three decades ago.

Yee recently confirmed that he was told by the City Attorney's Office to gather evidence that the National Park Service is violating the agreement it signed when the land was transferred.

According to that agreement, the National Park Service promised to preserve the land for recreation while also preserving its natural character.