Please join us for a peaceful protest at the NPS public meetings. This is our chance to directly ask the NPS questions.

When: Wednesday, March 23, 6-8pm -OR- March 30, 6-8pm

Where: Bay Model, 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965


Submit a question in advance on line. And have your questions ready to ask in person. (Sample Questions below)

In advance: Submit a question in advance via the NPS website, and it may be read at random at one of six public meetings. Duplicate questions will be grouped together.

At the meeting: Attend the public meeting in person and ask your question or submit your question in writing during the Q&A period. All questions must be kept to under one minute each.


**Sample Questions to submit for NPS public Meetings**

Please feel free to copy a question and submit them online.
You can also use any of these questions at the meeting.

1. Did the park service conduct a study on how this rule will impact city, county, and state parks?

2. Why have you not considered a program like a Voice and Sight Tag Program? This program would allow dogs to access designated trails off leash if they display special participation tags and complete an education class, etc? These types of programs have been very successful in other cities.

3. Why did the draft rule not heed the concerns of 3 county Boards of Supervisors and two members of Congress? The rule is unchanged from what was proposed in the DEIS preferred alternatives. How can the park service say that they listened and responded to the public?

4. Why were fire roads suddenly renamed “trails” in the draft rule?  These are roads accessed by trucks. Was this so you could ban dogs?

5. Is there any scientific study to show that dogs harm the environment?

6· Can you talk more about this “monitoring-based management” provision?  It’s my understanding that if people do not comply with the new rule, the Superintendent would have the discretion to completely ban recreational dog walking from any area without public review. Does it give the Superintendent the power make closures in anticipation of impacts by dogs BEFORE they even occur? 

7. Since the range expansion of coyotes into Marin and San Francisco, wildlife within the GGNRA has been exposed to a native canid predator. Some researchers (Forrest et al.) suggest that both birds and small mammals may have adapted to the presence of coyotes and thus as such have learned to deal with dogs better.  Your comment?

8. Why didn’t you conduct any site-specific, peer-reviewed studies? There’s not one in either EIS. Instead you just pulled random studies from across country and applied them here. If you’re going to conduct the largest removal of public access- don’t you think you should have to prove all these restrictions are necessary?

9. How do you plan to enforce the new rules? More rangers? How are you paying for this?

10. What is the estimated cumulative economic impact of these new rules for Commercial Dog Walkers? It seems that many dog walkers will have a difficult time making ends meet after paying for permits, incurring increased drive time to a limited number of trails, having to decrease the number of dogs walked, and scheduling walks during the weekdays only.

11. The Draft dog management plan proposed 6 different alternatives. Thousands of public comments opposed the preferred alternative. How did the NPS decide to move forward with alternative F? How come citizen comments were not addressed and integrated into a new plan?

12. Reed et al. In Conservation Biology 2010 and Forrest et al. In Urban Ecosystems 2006 both review the literature on impacts to wildlife by dogs and state that results are mixed and cannot be separated from human impacts. Essentially humans impact wildlife, with or without dogs. Both studies found no measurable effect of off-leash dogs on birds and mammals (Reed et al.) or carnivores (Forrest et al.). As such these authors did not see any merit in regulating dog walking but suggested that in order to protect wildlife managers should consider creating nature reserves closed to the public. Visitation level not dog presence has the largest effect on wildlife. Is the DMP really an attempt to exclude people from the GGNRA? Why is the NPS trying to discourage local residents from using these lands for recreation as they were intended?

13. On the radio programs (Forum, City Visions), the NPS continues to cite the Endangered Species Act as justification for excluding dogs and their companions. But the data to support this assertion is lacking. The ESA is the most important piece of legislation for protecting and recovering species and it is under constant attack because it has power. Don’t you think the NPS is using the act in a reckless manner by citing it over and over again as their basis for excluding nature-loving recreationists?

14. The enabling legislation for the GGNRA instructs the park service to "preserve for public use and enjoyment” and "provide for recreation”. In recent years the private non-profit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy has chosen highly visited sites within the GGNRA for species reintroduction, and then the park service has used the presence of those newly introduced species as justification for the removal of people with dogs. Muir Beach and the red legged frog is one prime example. What is Superintendent Lehnertz’s response be to assertions that the GGNRA is not being merely maintained or preserved, but rather it’s being CONVERTED?

15.  Muir Beach, which is surrounded by the GGNRA, is going to lose all its trail and fire road access for people with dogs, even on a leash. How can the park service justify this drastic cut to access to fire roads that their own trucks drive up and down?