Ocean Beach DOG
Negotiated Rulemaking
Home
Negot'd Rulemaking
News & Alerts
Pet Policy History
Unleash the Truth
Legal
Quote of the Day
Links
Hall of Fame
Amazing Tails
Dog Poetry
Membership
Gov't Contacts
Comic Relief
GGNRA News Feed
dog_involved.gif

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the petition to terminate NR and institute the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section 7 Special Regulation  (Note: the return address is on the petition)

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the flyer which briefly explains why we are circulating the petition.

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the document which explains fully why we are circulating the petition for the termination of NR and the institution of the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section Seven Special Regulation for the GGNRA.

enough.gif

Horizontal Divider 10

crissy2_signage.jpg
Crissy Field (Nov. 2005)

NR - How we got here and why we MUST
terminate the process

paw.gif

In 1972 the GGNRA took over management of thousands of acres of Bay Area parkland, promising to preserve historical recreational use.

paw.gif

True to their word, the GGNRA negotiated and implemented the 1979 Pet Policy.  The 1979 Pet Policy allows off-leash recreation on less than 1% of GGNRA acreage.

paw.gif

At that time, the GGNRA should have created a Section 7 Special Regulation for off-leash recreation to establish a proper exception to the National Park Service (NPS) general rule banning off-leash recreation in National Parks.

paw.gif

For reasons never fully explained to the public, the GGNRA never created that Section 7 Special Regulation for off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.

paw.gif

In 1992, the assault upon off-leash recreation in the GGNRA began.  Federal environmental requirements were violated, contracts with the municipalities and the public were violated, and incremental closures of off-leash areas in the GGNRA were implemented.

paw.gif

In 2001, the campaign against off-leash recreation culminated in a ban of off-leash recreation in the GGNRA entirely.  The conflict with NPS law was cited as the justification for this action.

paw.gif

The mismanagement of properties and recreation in the GGNRA prompted the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco to pass a resolution expressing their desire to take back management of properties they allowed the GGNRA to manage by virtue of the 1972 agreements establishing the GGNRA.  Litigation was undertaken by citizens in response to closures at Fort Funston.  The Federal court confirmed GGNRA violations of law.

paw.gif

To appease the anger of the locals, the GGNRA filed an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) with regards to a Section 7 Special Regulation for off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.  However, the text of the document was strongly biased against the propriety of allowing off-leash recreation in the GGNRA, and precluded off-leash recreation from even being considered in several key areas of the GGNRA.

paw.gif

To the dismay of GGNRA officials, the public submitted thousands upon thousands of comments to the Federal government in favor of off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.  A Federal Panel reviewed the comments, history and legal agreements for the GGNRA; in conclusion recommending the GGNRA create a Section 7 Special Regulation to allow off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.

paw.gif

At that time, the GGNRA had the permission of the Federal government to institute the 1979 Pet Policy as the Section 7 Special Regulation for the GGNRA.  Instead, based upon their ANPR document, they opined that a change to the current law (no off-leash) would require Negotiated Rulemaking (NR) to create an off-leash regulation for the GGNRA.

paw.gif

Prior to NR starting, a Federal Court determined that the 1979 Pet Policy had been illegally rescinded by the GGNRA, and reinstated the 1979 Pet Policy as the controlling law for off-leash recreation in the GGNRA.  With the permission of the Federal government, the legal protection of a court order, and the support of their own ANPR document (if the new Rule complied with the current law no NR is required) the GGNRA still refused to institute the 1979 Pet Policy as the new Section 7 Special Regulation, and continued to proceed with NR.  Additionally, the GGNRA appealed the Federal Court’s decision.

paw.gif

The GGNRA lost their appeal.  The 1979 Pet Policy was affirmed by the Federal Court as the controlling pet policy in the GGNRA. 

ff_signage_2.jpg
The GGNRA defies the Court as well as the tenets of "Good Faith" (Nov 2005)

paw.gif

The GGNRA continues to show contempt for the court’s decision, refusing to change the signage in the GGNRA so that the public is aware of which areas are now legally off-leash. (Update 2006:  some of the signage has now been changed, no doubt due to the adverse attention this posting created).  The GGNRA proceeds with NR, and refuses to acknowledge the 1979 Pet Policy as the logical starting point for negotiations, and the basis for environmental regulations.  In fact, the 1979 Pet Policy is not even listed as a document the NR Committee will be able to refer to within the NR process (the GGNRA advised the Court that they view the 1979 Pet Policy as an illegitimate document which NEVER had the power of law).  The GGNRA has repeatedly behaved in a manner that would convince any rational person that they are not conducting the NR process in good faith.  In fact, it appears they intend to pervert the NR process to eliminate off-leash recreation from the GGNRA entirely.

paw.gif

NR requires consensus among participants.  If consensus is not reached for a Section 7 Special Regulation, the GGNRA is allowed to create a Rule arbitrarily, as they did when they rescinded the 1979 Pet Policy.

paw.gif

In NR, the GGNRA has selected the participating groups and their representatives.  Six of the nineteen groups participating have submitted a petition to the Federal government asking that ALL off-leash recreation in the GGNRA be banned.  These same groups have both publicly and privately stated they see NR as a means to eliminate off-leash recreation from the GGNRA entirely.  Despite protest, they remain on the NR Committee.

paw.gif

Ocean Beach Dog Owners Group, a key stakeholder in the process, has been denied any representation on the NR Committee. 

paw.gif

Should NR proceed as premised by the GGNRA, Superintendent O’Neill will violate:

  • the Federal Statute which created the GGNRA
  • the grant deed restrictions for the properties transferred by San Francisco
  • the 1975 MOU with the City of San Francisco
  • the National Environmental Policy Act
  • the Endangered Species Act 
  • the Public Trust Doctrine
  • the Negotiated Rulemaking Act
  • the Code of Federal Regulations governing National Parks
  • the Federal Panel Recommendations to the General Superintendent on Proposed Rulemaking for Pet Management at GGNRA
  • the Department of Interior Director’s Order 75A.

We are asking the public to tell its government that we believe the needs of the public would best be served by termination of this unlawful NR process, and the institution of the 1979 Pet Policy as the Section 7 Special Regulation for the GGNRA.  Please download and sign our petition to make this happen. Also, please distribute the petition and flyer (as email attachments or links) to all of your friends and acquaintances who wish to see a permanent reinstatement of the 1979 Pet Policy.

Horizontal Divider 10

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the petition to terminate NR and institute the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section 7 Special Regulation  (Note: the return address is on the petition)

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the flyer which briefly explains why we are circulating the petition.

adobe4.gif

Click here to download a copy of the document which explains fully why we are circulating the petition for the termination of NR and the institution of the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section Seven Special Regulation for the GGNRA.


dogrun.gif