Dogs are a regular sight at Fort Funston in San Francisco. (Mike Koozmin/2011 S.F. Examiner)

Dogs are a regular sight at Fort Funston in San Francisco. (Mike Koozmin/2011 S.F. Examiner)

The reason so many hate government

I used to think the National Park Service was a great institution. In high school, I even considered a career as a park ranger. But having been involved in a fight with the Park Service for more than 15 years, I have lost all faith in the agency.

In their attempts to restrict where you can walk with a dog in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which includes nearly all the beaches and coastal land in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, the Park Service has repeatedly misled the public. They have shown nothing but contempt for opponents of their plans and for the process that requires public comment on controversial issues.

The Park Service is ramming through an unpopular, unscientific dog plan, just so a retiring agency director can add this final feather to his ranger’s cap.

The agency has no clue how to manage an urban recreation area located within a city of 800,000 people. In fact, in recent years, the Park Service has insisted on managing the urban GGNRA as if it was a remote, pristine backcountry, where people have solitary wilderness experiences.

The most visible impact of this management change has been on people who enjoy walking with their dogs. Not long after the GGNRA was created, staff developed a Pet Policy that allowed dog walking, including off-leash, on just 1 percent of the GGNRA’s land. People with dogs have never asked for more space; we just want to preserve that 1 percent.

Whether it was closing areas at Fort Funston to all visitors (not just people with dogs) or unilaterally rescinding the 1979 Pet Policy, the Park Service didn’t bother to ask for public comments before taking action. We had to go to court to force the agency to follow the law.

The Fort Funston case, in particular, embarrassed the Park Service. Emails uncovered in the lawsuit showed that GGNRA staff had knowingly lied to the public about their plans, repeatedly telling people no more closures were coming, while actively planning additional ones.

For years, the Park Service has single-mindedly and determinedly pushed its plan to cut where you can walk with a dog off-leash now by nearly 90 percent and significantly reduce where you can walk on-leash.

That’s not balance, that’s retribution.

The agency claims environmental and safety problems. Yet even their own environmental reviews have shown no significant impacts from dogs at any specific site in the GGNRA. Instead, they cite anecdotes, a wholly unreliable, unscientific basis for such dramatic access restrictions.

Whether you like dogs or not, you should be alarmed at how the Park Service has acted. Despite overwhelming public opposition — including by nearly every elected official in the three counties — the Park Service has made few changes from their original plan. They may be legally required to “take” public comment, but they clearly see no need to “act” on it.

Last year, knowing a draft rule was imminent, several groups filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Park Service for documents relating to the new rule. They didn’t respond. Several FOIA requests made by other dog plan opponents over the years have been similarly ignored. FOIA requests made by supporters of their proposed dog plan, however, were answered.

Once again, we had to go to court to force the Park Service to release documents we have every right to see. Under a judge’s close watch, the agency is finally being forced to produce the documents we first requested nearly a year and a half ago, months before the proposed rule was released. Unfortunately, by the time we received the first documents, the public comment period on the proposed rule had already ended.

The only plausible reason for the agency to push this hard and this fast is that current Park Service Director Jon Jarvis — who once famously told dog owners that he’d “rather give up the GGNRA than have dogs running there” — retires in January.

So the Park Service is rushing to finalize the dog rule early in January. My naive image of the National Park Service as America’s “best idea” has been shattered. I can understand why people are angry with the government. I am, too.

Sally Stephens is an animal, park and neighborhood activist who lives in the West of Twin Peaks area.

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at

Just Posted

Mayor London Breed speaks at the grand opening of the Bayview Essential Services Hub at the Southeast Community Facility on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
San Francisco enters red COVID tier, indoor dining to resume

Museums and gyms can reopen with capacity limits

Cities including San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley are calling for large grocery and drug store chains to pay employees hazard pay for working during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Shutterstock)
SF proposes $5 hazard pay law for grocery, drug store workers

San Francisco may soon join the growing number of cities requiring large… Continue reading

Hikers walk along a closed stretch of Twin Peaks Boulevard on Friday, Jan. 22, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
SFMTA board to vote on future of Twin Peaks Boulevard

The proposal would keep Burnett Avenue gate closed to vehicles, open Portola Drive

Kindergarten teacher Jennifer Klein collects crayons from students in the classroom at Lupine Hill Elementary School on Monday, Nov. 9, 2020 in Calabasas, California. (Al Seib/Los Angeles Times/TNS)
Newsom, legislators strike deal to reopen California schools

Taryn Luna and John Myers Los Angeles Times Gov. Gavin Newsom and… Continue reading

A sign about proposed development of the bluff at Thornton State Beach in Daly City on Friday, Feb. 26, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Retreat center proposed at popular state beach

Daly City residents oppose construction on ocean bluffs

Most Read