You are here

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Extends Comment Period On Dog Management Plan


Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which for more than a decade has worked to develop a management plan for dogs in the park, has extended into mid-February the time period during which you can comment on the latest draft plan.

Problems with unleashed dogs have plagued the NRA for some time. This past April, for one example, there was a report of unleashed dogs attacking goslings on the shoreline at Crissy Field. The attack reportedly resulted in the death of two of the goslings.

There have been at least nine incidents in the past year in which park visitors or employees were bitten by dogs, most of them off-leash dogs. One incident at Fort Funston involving a fight between two off-leash dogs resulted in a dog being stabbed by the owner of one of the dogs. Last year on Crissy Field, a U.S. Park Police horse was attacked and badly injured by an off-leash dog that was not under control.

Since the 1990s, the San Francisco Bay Area population and overall use of GGNRA park sites have increased, as have the number of private and commercial dog walkers. At the same time, the number of conflicts between park users with and without dogs began to rise, as did the fear of dogs and dog bites or attacks. The hours devoted by park staff to manage these conflicts, rescue dogs and owners, dispose of dog waste, educate the public on dog walking policies and regulations at each park site, and enforce regulations also increased. In addition, since the establishment of the park, several species with habitat in GGNRA areas used by dog walkers have been listed as threatened, endangered, or special-status species requiring special protection.


The overall goal of the plan open for comment is to develop a clear, enforceable policy that:

• provides a variety of visitor experiences, including areas where dog walking is allowed;

• improves visitor and employee safety;

• reduces user conflicts;

• provides a variety of visitor experiences and

• promotes the preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources and natural processes.

Some dog owners see any new restrictions as a "perversion" of the "vision" for recreational use of the park's open space. Based on the 1979 Pet Policy for the park, they also view any new limits as an example of "broken promises" made by past managers at Golden Gate.

Trying to come up with a workable plan is no small endeavor. The preferred alternative selected by Golden Gate officials actually contains a preferred alternative for each of 21 sites in the NRA deemed in need of a dog management plan. And the park also has developed a preferred alternative to guide the handling of dog walking permits in the NRA.

You can get a rundown on those individual preferred alternatives here

The cost for implementing the plan is expected to run about $1.5 million, and that is largely to pay for hiring more staff to implement the plan.

Comments on the plan are being received through February 18. You can read the plan, and its alternatives, and leave your comments, at this site.


Hello All, It is a new year and I prey that everyone is well and ready for more information on why the NPS/GGNRA's Dog Management Plan is a terrible hoax.

When the GGNRA used the Hatch Report to claim that the Snowy Plovers were endangered by off leash dogs at Ocean Beach, it was then Ocean Beach Dog made several requests for the raw data that was used to make their claims. What they got for their efforts was a stonewalling like no other. This was with a freedom of information act request and all the way up to the Department of Interior the parent organization over the National Park Service and the GGNRA the only reply was (Sue Us)

Think about this, the organization that makes the rules and does the study is afraid to reveal what they used to come to their rule. It is just like the wolf guarding the hen house. This is not an open and transparent issue, they chose to post the comments they like and do not like. The real test would be to put this to a vote since it affects the public of three bay area counties with over one million residents and well over 100,000 dogs this no issue to be taken lightly.

I invite you to check the research done by Dr Valente and Ocean Beach Dog that has proven that the NPS/GGNRA has relied on flawed science in making their rules. Enclosed are several links to Ocean Beach Dog web pages and a petition calling for Congressional Oversight of the NPS and the GGNRA for past and present practices that are unlawful. They have been breaking their own rules and getting away with it.

2013 SEIS/DEIS for GGNRA Dog Management Plan

How we Got Here


Access Denied


Hatch Report Analysis


lover Science


Unleash the Truth


Pet Policy History


Ocean Beach off Leash Closure


Reversion of GGNRA Parklands Back to San Francisco


Petition Calling for Congressional-Oversight of NPS/GGNRA


It is not by accident that Juge Alsup ruled against the NPS/GGNRA , they had been practicing in the changing of the Off Leash Dog Walking rules without any public input! This is why we are under the the 1979 Pet Policy. The GGNRA seen through the heavy response in 2011 against thier DEIS that their plans are flawed and up against a city; that is the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Mayor Lee, have recently passed another resolution that the City and County is against the 2013 DEIS/SEIS NPS/GGNRA Dog Management Plan.

Fianaly, the Superintendent may be the nicest guy in the world but he is the one in the drivers seat now and it is time he examine the facts that have been brought to light by Dr. Valente and Ocean Beach Dog and other individuals and groups and there is a vast majority of us that want the 1979 Pet Policy to be the law of the land in the 2013 DEIS/SEIS when all is said and done.

A quote below by Jon Jarvis the head of the NPS puts in place the whole attitude of this organization all the way down to the GGNRA management.

( I would rather give up those {the GGNRA} properties than have dogs running loose on them Jon Jarvis - Current Director National Park Service)

My thought on that statement is that it would be an excellent idea for him to start the process to release these GGNRA properties back to the City and County of San Francisco so recreation at these lands would be reinstated as it was before the GGNRA ever took charge.

Thomas Roop

Daly City, CA

Happy New Year, everyone:)! Great, good, bad and otherwise we got through another one.

Thanks Kurt for your site (and patience:)!

It's been nice and quiet for a few days. Welcome back, I suppose.

Dogs in parks is not an issue I'm invested in. If you'll look back at my "attack" it was phrased courteously, and intended to be helpful. The gentleman obvously cares about the topic - my suggestion was to ow he could better get his point communicated.

Rick, perhaps you would like to address Californian's issues rather than attack the source and criticize his spelling. But probably not.

Mr. B. I think you got the message though, it is clear.

I was at Fort Funston this afternoon and there were a lot of non dog walkers whom I spoke with and to a person they had no bad experiances with off leash dogs and one lady said she enjoys watching the dogs run and play off leash.

You may have won a spelling bee in your day, but you haven't a clue to what's at stake hear to many people who work hard to be a good GGNRA citizen with their Four Pawed Pals.

Thomas Roop

Daly City

My own less than informed opinion on the Golden Gate "dog" issue is mixed. I am acquainted with the gentleman who is the current Superintendent, we worked together in Yosemite National Park. He is a very low key, good humored, competent person, has a great deal of experience and is generally open to the concerns of both his employees and the citizens he serves. His spouse is a nurse, a delightful person. In any case, I suspect it is a can't win situation. Open space is at a premium in the city, people love their dogs, myself included, and most are responsible pet owners. Dogs need to run to. A tough one, glad I do not have to make the decision.

Mr Roop...

With all due respect, I hesitate to dig too deep into a long post that not only starts with its own prejudicial headline, but which spells incorrectly two of the seven words in the headline.

It's been my experience that the comment periods and the resulting public input is just a formality that is either ignored or in at least one case the results, falsely reported so to better arrive at the "preferred Alternative." Would not want to anger a tyranical Superintendent and ruin a career. I believe you have the info on that case, Kurt.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments