This is the only national park that allows dogs. Why change that? People have ALL THE OTHER parks to go to, just let them have ONE park, just the one.
1 Like
Lot of toxoplasmosis sufferers in here repeating propaganda beamed into their brains by their Cat Overlords, I seeā¦
4 Likes
The only possible solution is to have a ādog dayā,
saturdays dogs are banned, and everyone else can jog, take pictures, have a picnic or whatever they want without being pestered/peed/bitten by unleashed dogs.
sundays dogs are allowed to roam free, sniff their butts bite their tails off, eat poop and all that disgusting stuff they enjoy.
1 Like
5 foot fences, - sounds East German.
My dogs and I havenāt seen one of those in Germany.
Iāve read of dog parks, are they a German thing?
That last sentence is perfect. Iām lucky to live in an area rich in federal lands, including national parks, but I exercise my dog on city property where she wonāt annoy other visitors or endanger wildlife (or be endangered by it, in the case of mountain lions).
A monarchās claim to ownership ultimately rests on a supposed grant from a wholly imaginary being. (Would that even stand up in a modern court?)
The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is not Golden Gate Park.
1 Like
They are, insofar as their owner/guardian is held responsible for their behavior.
Advise people to carry around the decision in United States v. Barley, et al. You can find the published decision at http://www.ggnranews.blogspot.com. It is also available on the Ocean Beach DOG website. If you confront the Rangers and Park Police with knowledge of the law, they will back down.
[mod edit: removed signature]
1 Like
Maybe I am missing something, but I only see a restriction on professional dog walkers in the quoted text, not dogs. I donāt think that a business necessarily gets to operate in a public park ā at least without a permit. Iām thinking partly with issues such as how yoga/fitness classes conducted in parks usurp a public good for private gain.
I am very much aware that dogs arenāt allowed on NPS landsāand I plan my treks around it. There is, for example, a 'Dogās Muir Trailā which allows one to hike legally in the Sierraāwhile still avoiding NPS land.
What Iād like is a recognition that hiking above 10,000 feetāfar from anyoneāmight be OK, while the high-density locations need to be saved not from just dog feces, but also human.
I mean to say: this law affects my planning, year to year, of where my dog and I can hike. It may be ridiculous to suppose a ranger would intercept me and my dog on some remote hilltop, but itās the law and Iām not going to plan an illegal tripāthere are enough risks already.
Yeah, sure is tough to understand why everyone with a dog doesnāt solve all their problems by doing that too.
:-/
5 Likes
Really? BB is also the place that reblogs regular Koch Bro blurts from Reason.com. You know what they say happens to good peopleās politics when they get a lot of $.
1 Like
I like reading this and substituting āpeopleā every time you say ādogs.ā
2 Likes
Lolipop Jones, This is a dream that most people would envy, For myself and Our Dog Goldie and I are happy with the 50 acres of Fort Funston because urban living is where were at with 100,000 other Dogs and their Guardians. Goldie is an Older Stafordshire Terrier we rescued three years ago because we know from personal experience how dogs and feral cats ( Oh a cat without a license in San Mateo is considered a feral cat) end up in these over filled shelters with folks looking mainly for a young dog or kitten they can bring into there family and this makes it hard to place dogs at risk from being euthanized. If we had your acreage we would have cats and dogs living the life of Riley.
But We are in the San Francisco Bay Area a highly populated dense living space.
When the City of San Francisco deeded over the lands in 1975 now controlled by the GGNRA there was a MOU that recognized the need for expansion for further recreation and one of these was The Resource of Recreational Dog Walking in and Urban Environment was and still is a mainstay. So Much was this considered important, all Stake Holders in 1979 put together a Pet Policy plan that was agreed by all stake holders and is the 1979 Pet Policy, which is still in effect.
Now we move forward and in 2006-2007 The GGNRA did not do any monitoring reports or Site Specific Peer Review Studies before the GGNRA introduced Negotiated Rule-Making , but here is where the first illegal step was made. the GGNRA did not do any type of monitoring or the site specific peer reviews that are required before the GGNRA can jump ahead to Negotiated Rule Making the Ocean Beach Dog Walkers Group has done extensive research on this topic and if you are really interested in the Recreational Resource of Off Leash Dog Walking
I invite you to got to to read about Negotiated Rule Making
http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com/id50.html
Keep this in mind right now, Off Leash Dog Parks in the GGNRA represent 1% of the more than 80,000 acres that the GGNRA controls and when the GGNRA was reminded by Congress in 1972 that they should prepare for higher usage in this urban environment. What they have done is drawn a plan to take the Recreational Resource Areas for dog walking and cut 90% of the 1% of the available Off Leash Dog Spaceā¦
Take a look at the Fort Funston map if the GGNRA preferred plan is passed. http://oceanbeachdog2.home.mindspring.com/id31.html
Thank you all and this is about the Dogs, maybe some of you have not made the connection yet to how special a dog being able to run in an open space like Fort Funston is, I hope that this opportunity remains open for future dogs and their guardiansā¦I had not had a dog in 40 years now Goldie is a big part of our lives just as this whole Off Leash Dog recreation is for our health and our dog Goldieās health which is a Recognized Recreational Resource in the GGNRA/NPS/DOI 1972 Congressional Enableing Act that created the GGNRA.
Tom & Goldie (14)
Members of Ocean Beach Dog at Fort Funston 
2 Likes
Thank you, Tom. My best to Goldie.
no. they are new, getting popular over the last few years. if locals want them, the ward councillor will sort it.
unless it is a dog area, they must be on leash.
my original argument was exatly that, applied to show the same in the comment to which I was replying. Durr.
The dog areas of parks have 5 foot fences around them.
Seems backwards, since the dogs and their owners are the ones who are open to things.
open to what?
