Meet The Karazans

Smudge Gets a Grooming

2012-02-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

You Ought To Be Having Fun (Pt. 2)

2012-02-02T17:15:00.000-08:00

Meet Smudge and Dash

2012-01-27T08:15:00.001-08:00

A Day at the Park

2012-01-17T13:35:00.001-08:00

Satchie Is Official

2012-01-10T13:04:00.001-08:00

The Brothers

2012-01-06T08:37:00.001-08:00

Happy Newf Year

2012-01-01T17:42:00.000-08:00

Heading Into A Brand Newf Year

2011-12-31T18:18:00.001-08:00

Sweet Beautiful Andrew

2011-12-29T19:26:00.001-08:00

Happy 1st Birthday To Chase & Coal

2011-12-28T10:42:00.000-08:00

Fekete Panda Black Wizard and Fekete Panda Black Power

The Day We Went To Grandma's

2011-12-26T17:27:00.000-08:00

The day we went to Grandma's,
Oh what a fuss she made,
Wipe those feet and dry your paws,
That carpet's just been laid.
She put us in the garden,
So we had a sniff around,
We pulled up all her flowers,
'Til there were no more in the ground.

Well Grandma just started shrieking,
She really got quite mad,
So we gave her some of the flowers,
To make her feel less sad.

Later on that evening,
All warm and in our beds,
Our tummies started rumbling,
It's time that we were fed.

We went into the living room,
But they were watching telly,
"Come on nan" I barked out loud.
"It's time to fill our bellies".

We went into the kitchen,
To see what we could find,
"Oh wow" I whined, "a loaf of bread"
I'm sure that they won't mind.

Look left, look right,
the coast was clear,
We love the smell of bread,
We grabbed it quick and hurried out to eat it in our beds.

Now for a drink to wash it down,
But the bowl's outside the door.
We go back to the living room,
and pace up and down the floor.

Well Grandad got the message
And let us out the back.
We shot straight past the drinking bowl,
And headed down the track.

There was something in the garden
That a Newfie just can't resist,
An ornamental pond of course,
With lots of pretty fish.

After clearing out the pond for nan,
We went back to the door,
pushed it open, went inside.
Dripping pond onto the floor.

Nan she started yelling,
Grandad, well he just laughed,
She said that we were stinking
And had to have a bath.

Cleaned and dried and let back in,
We tried to sit with nan.
"Get off me lap you silly dog,
You're bigger than I am"!!

We got back down and left the room
and went back to our beds,
Two pairs of shoes and a slipper later,
Time to get those zzzzzzzzzzzz,s.

Breakfast at Grandma's is great,
As we get tea and toast,
But after we were still not full
So we ate the Sunday roast!

We couldn't understand them,
But we knew that we'd been bad.
"F's" and "B's" were mentioned
Time to look real sad.

We looked at them with our big brown eyes,
Our heads held down quite low,
It did the trick - it always does
We're still their little beaus.

We didn't stay as long as planned,
As Dad he got quite stressed,
Having chased us out of the pond again,
he thought it for the best.

We kid you not, it's how it was.
We're telling you the truth.
The day we went ot Grandma's
She got well and truly NEWF'D!!!

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T10:21:00.001-08:00

For Jet and Primo

2011-12-22T10:46:00.000-08:00

If we could have anything for the holidays, it would be you.

Rest in peace beloved brothers.

Satchie & Andrew

It's a Brand Newf Day

2011-12-17T09:42:00.000-08:00

Andrew Dressed Up

2011-12-13T12:10:00.001-08:00

For Jack (From Satchel)

2011-12-08T16:26:00.001-08:00

Jack of All Hearts

2011-12-07T08:12:00.000-08:00

"If I should meet thee
After long years
How should I greet thee?
With silence and tears"
(Lord Byron)

Andrew in Vallejo

2011-12-06T07:46:00.001-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-24T13:49:00.001-08:00

Andrew in Black and White

2011-11-13T13:37:00.000-08:00

Ch Karazan Satchel

2011-11-05T14:32:00.001-07:00

Sweeping Up at Dixon

2011-10-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

At the NCNC Regional Specialty show in Dixon, California yesterday, Ch. Karazan Satchel won Best Veteran Sweepstakes Dog, and Fekete Panda Black Wizard (Chase) won Best Puppy Sweepstakes. Congratulations to our two beautiful children.

For Jet

2011-10-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday dear baby boy; standing watch far over the Bridge.

"If I should meet thee
After long years,
How should I greet thee?
With silence and tears."

(Lord Byron)

We Miss You Primo

2011-10-17T15:32:00.000-07:00

For Primo

2011-10-03T14:48:00.001-07:00

"When some proud Son of Man returns to Earth,
Unknown by Glory, but upheld by Birth,
The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,
And storied urns record who rests below.
When all is done, upon the Tomb is seen,
Not what he was, but what he should have been.
But the poor Dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his Master’s own,
Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in heaven the Soul he held on earth –
While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,
Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –
Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,
Degraded mass of animated dust!
Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,
Thy tongue hypocrisy, thy heart deceit!
By nature vile, ennobled but by name,
Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.
Ye, who perchance behold this simple urn,
Pass on – it honors none you wish to mourn.
To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;
I never knew but one – and here he lies."

(Lord Byron)

Bless you, my dear young boy.
You will always be in my heart and part of me.
I pray that I was worthy.

My Best Friend Is A Newfoundland

2011-09-25T21:49:00.001-07:00

Give To Newfie Canine Cancer Research

2011-09-17T16:21:00.000-07:00

This poster is for sale with a donation to canine cancer research. Send an email for details to jennifer@ohanadogs.com.

Remembering

2011-09-11T08:15:00.001-07:00

We Are Brothers

2011-09-05T18:51:00.001-07:00

Meet Champion Karazan Satchel

2011-08-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

Today, at the Mensona Kennel Club Show in Santa Rosa, Satchie took Winner's Dog and a four-point-major to earn his AKC Championship. Brother Andrew took Reserve Winner's Dog!! I am so proud of my loving and beautiful boys!!!

Congratulations to my boy, Ch. Karazan Satchel, and to Cara Drogus and Kaitlyn Anderson for such great work.

Coal Gets Groomed

2011-08-22T15:55:00.001-07:00

The little boy is getting big.

What's It All About Satchie?

2011-08-11T10:43:00.000-07:00

Satchel & Andrew - On The Road

2011-08-01T13:32:00.000-07:00

NewfieWorld Newf Of The Day -- Satchie!!!

2011-07-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

http://newfieworld.net/blog/newf_of_the-_day/satchel

Satchamoose

2011-07-27T10:26:00.001-07:00

The Kids Go For A Swim

2011-07-19T14:55:00.001-07:00

Chase, Coal and Primo do their thing!

The Gentle Giant

2011-07-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday Beloved Jack

2011-07-06T11:48:00.000-07:00

July 6, 1999 - December 9, 2006

May the blessed Mary of the Angels
wrap you in her cloak of Peace

Great Newfoundlands in History

2011-07-04T15:36:00.001-07:00

Happy 4th of July!!

Happy Birthday Andrew

2011-06-27T16:43:00.000-07:00

To the sweetest boy in the world.

"Beauty without vanity
Courage without ferocity
Strength without insolence
And all the virutes of Man
Without his Vices"

I love you Puppy!!!!!!

The Boys At Woofstock 2011

2011-06-13T12:03:00.001-07:00

Why Does the GGNRA Keep Stepping In It?

2011-06-09T14:21:00.000-07:00

Why Does the GGNRA Keep Stepping In It?

As noted in the cited survey, "[w]hen asked if they would vote for a city ballot measure to recommend that the GGNRA maintain off-leash dog areas, fully 78% of the respondents said yes – they supported maintaining the off leash areas. Only 22% opposed the plan to send a recommendation to the GGNRA to maintain the current off-leash dog areas."

Meet Coal & Chase

2011-06-06T12:10:00.000-07:00

Brother and sister from Fekete Panda Newfoundlands.

Happy Birthday Satchel

2011-05-26T09:42:00.000-07:00

And a big happy birthday to Tickle, Burnette, Zack, Justin and the rest of the gang.

Satchie, Winner's Dog

2011-05-23T10:37:00.001-07:00

Saturday and Sunday, Coyote Hills Kennel Club (May 21 - 22)

The Mad Hatter Comes Home

2011-05-14T21:31:00.000-07:00

Jet came to us at 10 weeks of age. He was a wonderful and beautiful boy. All we could think of was what a grand future he would have. And for seven weeks, he gave us more joy than we could have ever hoped for. He is over the Bridge now, with so many of his mates. But thanks to the brilliant Nancy Gasser and dear friends Debra Holloman, Sheila Tatman, and Annie Garretson Milliron, and the work they did for us at the National in Frankenmuth, he lives on in spirit and beauty.

Play and romp to your dear heart's content Jet; we will always be thinking of you and the joy you gave us.

I Miss You Jack

2011-05-09T07:40:00.001-07:00

“Beyond the East the sunrise, beyond the West the sea, And the East and West the wander-thirst that will not let me be.”

Response To Marin IJ Op Ed Piece: "An Accomodation, Not a Dog Ban at GGNRA"

2011-05-04T15:39:00.000-07:00

I offer the following as a rebuttal to the April 24, 2011 Op-Ed piece by Betsey Cutler, Amy Meyer, and Gordon Bennett:

"A Dog Ban, Not An Accommodation"

It is astonishing that Betsey Cutler, Amy Meyer and Gordon Bennett submitted such a pack of misrepresentations regarding the state of off leash recreation in the GGNRA.

As one of the defendants (and attorneys) in the 2004 and 2005 litigation over off leash recreation in the GGNRA, this pack of lies needs to be exposed for what it is: an attempt to justify a ban on dogs, not an accommodation.

Incredibly, the authors never so much as mention the 1979 Pet Policy, yet were involved in its promulgation. This came after two years of negotiations with groups such as the Sierra Club, who would now rewrite history.

The legality of the 1979 Pet Policy was put to test when three individuals cited for off leash recreation were charged criminally under federal regulations, notwithstanding our compliance with the 1979 Pet Policy. Two federal judges found that, despite the federal regulation banning pets from being off-leash in national parks, the 1979 Pet Policy (which allows off leash recreation in less than one percent of the GGNRA) was legally implemented and adopted by the GGNRA, and illegally rescinded by the GGNRA. (See, United States v. Barley, et al, at http://www.ggnranews.blogspot.com.) Accordingly, despite the statements of the authors, the 1979 Pet Policy is the law of the land as respects the GGNRA. (Yet in the DEIS, it is referred to as a "Draft" policy.) It cannot be changed absent a legally proper "rulemaking" process, which is what the DEIS attempts to do. Yet, curiously, the 1979 Pet Policy is not even offered as alternative in the DEIS. Indeed, the so-called" "no action" alternative includes illegal closures at Crissy Field and Ocean Beach in 2006 for the alleged protection of the Snowy Plover, yet a few months earlier, in federal court, the GGNRA's attorneys stated that such closures were not legally justified This the authors never even attempt to explain because their goal is to hide the truth.

The 1979 Pet Policy provides ample protection for the environment: anyone whose dog is not under voice control, is bothering other dogs or people, or disturbs wildlife, is subject to citation. The Policy has served the Bay Area very well for decades. The attempt to change the Policy so dramatically is not about the environment, it is about philosophy. As Brian O'Neill (who twice was found to have violated the law in closures of GGNRA managed land) said: "I will not have dogs running loose in MY park." "Beloved"? Don't tell it to the dogs and their owners.

The authors also claim that there is a legally mandated 8 year planning process behind the DEIS. This is sheer nonsense and made without any support. The GGNRA remains empowered to make the 1979 Pet Policy a Section 7 Special Regulation, yet even after years of wrangling, litigation, and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, it refuses to do so. Why? Because the DEIS is yet another GGNRA attempt at completely banning off leash recreation from the Park. Under its "preferred" alternative, for example, Muir Beach would be completely on-leash. An "accommodation"?

The authors' citation to the purpose of the GGNRA could not be more perverse. The GGNRA was established in part through a campaign in 1970 by Secretary of Interior Walter Hickel "to bring parks to the people", putting the National Park Service in a movement to increase outdoor recreation in urban areas. (U.S. Department of Interior News Release, September 14, 1970.) Congress established the GGNRA on October 27, 1972 "to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values.” (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460bb.)
In addition to this generic statement of purpose appearing in most national park statutes, Congress included two "specific provisions" unique to the GGNRA. First, the park was established "to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning." (Emphasis added.) Second, the GGNRA statute imposes a unique limitation on NPS's discretionary power for "management of the recreation area" by providing that the "Secretary of Interior...shall utilize the resources in a manner which will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management." Why do the authors completely fail to mention these controlling statements of purpose?

When voting for Charter Section 7.403-1(a) authorizing the transfer of nearly 60% of the City parklands, the citizens of San Francisco were told that "the transfer of these lands is a technical resolution allowing the City and County of San Francisco to transfer city lands to the Golden Gate National Recreation area…a national urban park established in 1972 by Congress to preserve 34,000 acres of land and water in San Francisco and Marin for recreational use by all citizens." Aware that certain unique restrictions were included in the enabling statute requiring the NPS to maintain "recreational open space necessary for urban environment and planning", San Francisco adopted the "technical resolution" authorizing the transfer of City parks for "recreational use by all citizens." Allaying concern over the transfer of the property, the NPS promised the City that "historical recreational use" would be continued.

The authors make no mention of these significant facts because they are part and parcel of the GGNRA attempt to ban dogs from the Park. That is plainly and simply the purpose of the DEIS.

There is a universal jury instruction that states, in essence, that if you find a material part of a witness' testimony to have been false, you may disregard the entirety of that testimony. That is an apt way to look at what was written by these authors.

The Smoking Gun On GGNRA Illegalities

2011-04-25T08:55:00.000-07:00

There is a very revealing document prepared by the Director of the National Park Service in 2002, Ms. Fran Mainella. This document clearly explains why the GGNRA violated the promises made to the citizens when the National Recreation Area was created, and abolished off-leash recreation in 2001. This document explains how the NPS has perverted the Organic Act of 1916 to justify doing so. Further, it reveals that the DEIS process is a template utilized by the NPS to restrict access for humans engaged in various activities in National Park Units. So, despite our comments on this DEIS, it is obvious the GGNRA will not provide us the access we desire or deserve through the DEIS process.

Lastly, this document reveals that some Superintendents of NPS units believe these activities are unlawful. This may explain why we have had some relief in the courts, and why Congress or the courts are the only entities that will provide us the access we are entitled to. It is in the best interest of all citizens who enjoy recreating in the GGNRA to take note as it is not dogs that are the target of the NPS, but people, regardless of their recreational interests. We are just the first to be exiled.

The document is entitled, “Briefing Paper-Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation , and Public Lands-Subcommittee Oversight Hearing-April 25, 2002-2:00 p.m. 1334 LHOB”. The document is embedded in its entirety at the Ocean Beach DOG web site.

First, the paper describes how the GGNRA/NPS has altered the interpretation of the Organic Act so as to eliminate the priority for access and enjoyment of our park-the GGNRA.

The Organic Act of 1916 established the National Park Service and stated its purpose "to conserve the scenery and the national historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The purpose of the Park Service, then, can be summarized in two emphases: (1) to conserve park resources and (2) to provide for the enjoyment of these resources by the public. A proper balance must be found between the two.

There is concern that the 2001 Park Management Policies seem to be highly biased in favor of the first objective of the Act at the expense, and to the exclusion of, the second objective. In fact, when the new policies were introduced NPS Director Robert Stanton stated, "We believe this update of Management Policies will improve the Service's ability to protect park resources and values as Congress intended when it passed the 1916 Organic Act ..." No mention was made of the second requirement of the Organic Act. Moreover, the handbook itself lists as the sole fundamental purpose of the Service to conserve park resources and values while omitting the second provision.

This sharply contrasts with the 1988 Management policies which distinctly support the balance of both resource conservation and providing enjoyment to the public.

The new management policies are to be used "as the basic Service wide policy manual used by park superintendents and other NPS managers to guide their decision-making (emphasis added]''' These policies have already permeated into local park units and have significantly affected users around the nation. Limitations on snowmobiles, personal watercraft, and even the ability to walk pets in a national recreation area have been limited under the guise of the 2001 policies.

Next the briefing paper describes one avenue for eliminating access to the public-the recovery of endangered and threatened species; which has been extensively utilized by GGNRA management. This explains the GGNRA’s repeated treatment of any habitat, no matter how deficient, as critical habitat. The GGNRA has also implemented the “build it and they will come” philosophy to further reduce public access.

A few issues of concern are outlined below:… While the 1988 Management Policies state that the NPS will participate in the recovery of endangered and threatened species within park boundaries, the 2001 policies state that the Service will "pro-actively" work to "survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to national park system units ... (4.4.2.3)" There is concern that the new policy does not seem to be limited by the park's boundaries. The policy would seem to greatly expand the jurisdiction and role of the NPS by directing the agency to monitor species living outside park boundaries that might be considered native to the area. This concern has heightened with the recent fraudulent placement of lynx hair in an effort to extend critical habitat.

Within this new prism of the NPS Management Objectives, the concept of impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act is broadly defined. The briefing paper states:

An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment….This policy seems to be a very broad interpretation of the impairment standard which will pose numerous problems for park management, as well as invite numerous legal challenges. In fact, some park superintendents have privately expressed concern regarding the problematic nature of the management polices and have specifically cited the impairment standard.

In addition, language in the policies have given NPS a foothold in regulating historically sound forms of recreation.

The DEIS process has been utilized to eliminate/minimize snowmobiles in National Parks. Now the GGNRA is using the same process to eliminate off-leash recreation here. You note the briefing paper classifies snowmobiling and off-leash recreation as historically sound forms of recreation (in selected Park properties). It is no surprise the decision to proceed with the current DEIS for pet management here in the GGNRA was not justified by any underlying data, documents or studies. Please see the page entitled “DEIS is Unlawful” on this site for a full explanation.

Snowmobile use has been under intense scrutiny in the park system…The Service recently released its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) motivated by concerns of motorists who were denied access because of the final rule. The new findings in the Draft SEIS heavily relied on the terminology and guidelines of the 2001 Management policies.

The path is now clear. Unfortunately, in 2002, Congress failed to act to protect our interests. In 2004 and 2005 we were fortunate enough to have three citizens spend the time and money to reverse the ban on off-leash recreation. This time, we cannot depend upon the Courts, especially considering the expense to challenge the GGNRA/NPS in court. Beyond this, any reversal we achieve in court will inevitably be followed by yet another plan by the GGNRA/NPS to again remove off-leash recreation. This time we must convince the Congressional Subcommittees that oversee the NPS to do the following:

Oppose not only the Preferred Alternative, but all Alternatives considered in the DEIS
Hold Congressional hearings that will look at the problems caused by the National Park Service’s improper interpretation of the Organic Act.
Introduce legislation that will do one of the following:
Create a Section 7 regulation to allow off-leash dog walking in all areas where it was allowed in the 1979 Pet Policy, plus off-leash in San Mateo County and on lands that are added to the GGNRA in the future, with no “poison pill”.
Clarify the enabling legislation to allow national recreation areas to be administered differently than national parks, and to be managed with an emphasis on recreation.
Alternatively, take the GGNRA out of the National Park Service and give it to the US Forest Service, with the understanding that recreational access will be protected within it.

All stakeholders interested in retaining off-leash recreation in the GGNRA must contact their legislative representative in Congress. The contact information is listed below.

CONTACT:
U.S. Representative Jackie Speier, (202) 225-3531
U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey, (202) 225-5161
U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (202) 225-4965
U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo, (202) 225-8104
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, (202) 224-3841

If you’re not sure who your Congresswoman is, go to www.congress.org and enter your zip code.

More GGNRA Junk Science: An Open Letter To The Golden Gate Audubon Society

2011-04-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

This is an addendum to Dr. Suzanne Valente's previous submission to the GGNRA with respect to the 2008 closure of a section of Ocean Beach referred to as the “Plover Protection Area”. This addendum is intended to supplement the previous comment and respond to the new plover issues as outlined in the 2011 DEIS for the GGNRA. (See Ocean Beach DOG)

As noted in my original comment, this 2011 DEIS again fails to mention a 2007 study by Warren that found plovers’ feeding was not negatively impacted by recreational activities of humans and dogs. This is critically important because the plover does not nest or breed at Ocean Beach or Crissy Field; its’ primary activity here is feeding and foraging for food. Instead of acknowledging the Warren study, this DEIS relies in large part upon a study by Matthew Zlatunich and Michael Lynes of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. This new study, like the Warren study, was conducted in cooperation with the GGNRA.

The new Zlatunich-Lynes study was conducted in 2009/2010 at Crissy Field in San Francisco. This study exhibits many of the scientific shortcomings noted in my original comment:
This study was merely an observational study
The observational collection of data was performed by Audubon volunteers who had a bias—the GGAS has publicly advocated the banning of dogs to protect the plover
This study made no attempt to ascertain comparative effects on the plover. There is no discussion of the disturbance level perpetrated by other sources, even though they tell us that data was collected
Raw data is not provided to the reader
The analysis appears to be biased because it is based upon incomplete data. For example, the level of disturbance is not categorized in the analysis even though we are told they were categorized in their collection.
Assumptions are made in this analysis without supporting explanation. For example, they decided to assign the disturbance to an on-leash dog if he was closer to the plover than his guardian. This ignores the possibility the disturbance was due to the number of bodies—e.g. two people walking would disturb a plover to the same extent as a leashed dog and a person.

To clarify the issue of comparative disturbance, it seems odd that although known predators of the plover are acknowledged to be at Crissy Field, no attempt is made to analyze the disturbance they create for the plover. The Common Raven and American Crow are present, yet ignored in the analysis. Beyond this, the California Gull is noted as being present. This is of interest because a recent study using surveillance cameras at plover nesting sites in San Francisco Bay documented California Gulls as being responsible for 25% of all predation of plover nests. (Robinson-Nilsen, Caitlin1, Jill Bluso Demers1, Cheryl Strong2, and Scott Demers 3; 1 San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, crobinson@sfbbo.org; 2 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; 3 HT Harvey and Associates DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS AND PREDATORS FOR WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER). California Gulls are new to some of these areas—could the decline in the number of plovers at Crissy Field be related to an increase in the presence of California Gulls? This study makes no attempt to ascertain if there is any such correlation.

The Zlatunich-Lynes study notes the number of plovers has been steadily declining since 2005/2006 records. They choose to rely upon previous conclusions that the greatest disturbance impact to wildlife within the Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field is caused by dogs, joggers and walkers. The data from this study showed the number of dogs and humans in the plover area spiked in 2008/2009, and declined dramatically in 2009/2010. The number of plovers continued to decline, despite the reduction in recreational disturbance in 2009/2010. This could lead one to conclude that there is no correlation between the number of dogs and people and the number of plovers present. There is no discussion of this possibility in the data analysis of this study.

The Zlatunich-Lynes study is without scientific merit because it deliberately misleads the reader about the GGNRA’s legal obligations to protect the plover. Ocean Beach and Crissy Field are not designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. Therefore, the GGNRA is obligated only to prevent the harassment or taking of the plover within its boundaries. Appendix B contains the legal definition of a disturbance which would constitute harassment and be a violation of the law: “If the observer witnesses a blatant violation of the law, such as a dog owner knowingly and without regard allowing his dog to harass wildlife, the observer shall make note on the comment sheet and shall, upon completion of the survey, file a wildlife harassment report at the park police station…” There is no indication in this study analysis that any observer EVER witnessed this type of harassment of a plover during their observations.

Alternatively, the Zlatunich-Lynes study records “disturbances” which they define as minor, moderate and major—none of which rise to the level of the legal and accepted definition of a disturbance that is utilized by USFWS and other studies. For example, the Zlatunich-Lynes study states: “a minor disturbance will cause a resting bird to stand”. A clear thinking individual can conclude that a minor “disturbance” as defined by this study is really no disturbance at all. Worse yet, when analyzing the number of “disturbances” observed, there is no acknowledgement as to how many of these “disturbances” are actually minor, moderate or major based upon these authors’ criteria. It is entirely possible (and I believe probable) that each of the disturbances recorded and utilized to justify the restriction of recreation were merely minor “disturbances”. This would be consistent with the conclusions of other studies including the following which states: “…snowy plovers in other areas have become habituated to relatively constant and non-threatening human trail use.” (Trulio, Lynne1 , Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen2, Jana Sokale3 and Kevin Lafferty4 1 San Jose State University; Lynne.Trulio@sjsu.edu ; 2San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; 3 Sokale Environmental Planning; 4 Western Ecological Research Center, US Geological Survey NESTING SNOWY PLOVER RESPONSE TO NEW TRAIL USE.)

In summary, the Zlatunich-Lynes study and its recommendations are flawed, dishonest and biased. The DEIS advocates recreational restrictions based upon this study. Clearly, the failure in this study to find any violation of the law with respect to the protection of the plover, and the omission of studies that contradict the need for recreational restrictions should render this aspect of the DEIS invalid and discredit the conclusion that recreational restrictions must be implemented to protect the plover in the GGNRA.

Newfoundlands To The Rescue

2011-04-02T19:03:00.000-07:00

An SICS Weekend of Rescue and Helicopter Training

For The Jet

2011-03-27T11:28:00.001-07:00

"The saddest words of tongue or pen,
'to know the things that might have been'."

The GGNRA: Let's Take Back Our Land

2011-03-24T19:07:00.000-07:00

The GGNRA was established in part through a campaign in 1970 by Secretary of Interior Walter Hickel "to bring parks to the people", putting the National Park Service in a movement to increase outdoor recreation in urban areas. (U.S. Department of Interior News Release, September 14, 1970.)

In recent years, we have wondered if the GGNRA really wants us in “their park”. If you look at some of the GGNRA’s management activities, you have cause to wonder. For example, in 1989 the GGNRA, under the supervision of Brian O’Neill, signed on to a biosphere habitat program entitled “Man and Biosphere Habitat Programme” (“MAB” or “MAP”). One would be hard pressed to find a philosophy in greater conflict with the recreational priority of the GGNRA than that of Peter Bridgewater, Secretary of the MAB/MAP Programme, who has said, “Earth would be a better place if we had no people.”

This DEIS is premised as a necessity to save the GGNRA from being permanently degraded by overuse of the park. From the GGNRA DEIS Executive Summary (see: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=303&projectID=11759&documentID=38106):

"Since the 1990s, the San Francisco Bay Area population and overall use of GGNRA park sites have increased…”

From ABC News (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=8000372):

"But the GGNRA says the number of visitors to the park has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, threatening the condition of the parks. The GGNRA also points out that it is the only recreation area in the national parks system that has any off-leash areas at all.”

The article further quotes GGNRA spokesperson Howard Levitt,

“We need to consider the spectrum of visitor use of an area, people who want to enjoy the park with their dogs off leash, people who want to experience it as dog-free, and all of our, as you can imagine, 16 million visitors that fit along that spectrum."

Funny thing, when you actually get a look at the NPS official visitor statistics for the GGNRA, you see that the GGNRA management is once again, lying.

From http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm?parkid=296:

Total GGNRA Recreation Visits

1973 - 42,600

1974 - 702,300

1975 - 1,196,900

1976 - 1,457,600

1977 - 6,300,200

1978 - 8,960,938

1979 - 11,321,127

1980 - 18,421,773

1981 - 20,279,789

1982 - 19,897,389

1983 - 17,604,551

1984 - 16,731,706

1985 - 18,355,365

1986 - 21,582,368

1987 - 21,767,176

1988 - 21,759,271

1989 - 16,656,896

1990 - 14,650,213

1991 - 14,695,771

1992 - 15,309,338

1993 - 14,695,777

1994 - 14,695,771

1995 - 14,695,771

1996 - 14,043,984

1997 - 13,803,382

1998 -14,046,590

1999 - 14,048,085

2000 - 14,486,065

2001 - 13,457,900

2002 - 13,961,267

2003 - 13,854,750

2004 - 13,270,547

2005 - 13,602,629

2006 - 13,486,826

2007 - 14,397,313

2008 - 14,554,750

2009 - 15,036,372

2010 - 14,271,503

Total - 522,102,545

The year of 1989, when the Biosphere program began, saw visitors drop by over 5 million in this Recreation Area that otherwise had shown steady growth in recreation visitors since they started tracking visitors in 1973.

The number of park visitors has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. In fact, in 1988 the GGNRA experienced close to its greatest number of visitors, (second only to 1987 which had about 8,000 more) coming in at 21,759,271 recreational visitors. According to NPS statistics, in 2010, the total number of recreational visitors was 14,271,503, down about 34% from 1988.

Consider also that in the past 20 years the GGNRA acreage has almost doubled in size, and expanded into San Mateo County. This puts a far larger population in direct proximity to the Recreation Area, yet the visitor numbers are down dramatically.

The DEIS is just a reflection of the management priorities that Brian O’Neill started with his Biosphere commitment that have systematically denied and discouraged access for the public to this Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The DEIS is not about increased conflicts in the park because of dogs, or degradation of the park; it’s about keeping people out of the GGNRA. With the GGNRA now owning close to sixty percent of the open park space in cities like San Francisco and Pacifica, don’t you think it’s about time that we take back our parks?

It's Going To Take A Little Time

2011-03-21T09:18:00.000-07:00

An Open Sentence To GGNRA Superintendent Frank Dean

2011-03-16T18:20:00.001-07:00

Dear GGNRA Superintendent Fran Dean:

The National Park Service regulation mandating a permit to conduct expressive activities within a national park is "antithetical to the core First Amendment principle that restrictions on free speech in a public forum may be valid only if narrowly tailored." (Boardley v. Department of Interior, No. 09-5176, p. 2 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010).) In short, shove it!

Why The GGNRA's DEIS Is Illegal

2011-03-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

The GGNRA's enabling legislation requires the GGNRA to utilize sound principles of land use planning and management. An accepted practice is illustrated by the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness ("RNRAW") which produces an annual monitoring report. The report assesses current recreation trends, needs, and impacts, and thereby serves as a tool for long-term management of the RNRAW. The following is taken from the Introduction of the Report for 2009:

“This is the seventeenth annual monitoring report for the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) based Management Direction for the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area (NRA) and Wilderness (RNRAW), which was approved in December 1992. Monitoring is the final step in the LAC planning system. It is an ongoing, continuous process and is instrumental for evaluating management effectiveness and sustainability of resource values and conditions. The LAC process recognizes that wilderness conditions change. Wilderness areas are dynamic systems with many forces continually affecting the landscape. These forces of change include people and their impacts, fire, insects and disease, invasive species and many others. It defines what conditions are desirable and how to achieve or maintain those conditions. Based on citizen involvement, laws and regulation, it identifies what changes are acceptable rather than attempting to prevent change. Monitoring is based upon the indicators and standards outlined in the LAC direction. The indicators and their specific standards provide methods of measurement to effectively monitor factors and area wide issues. Refer to the December, 1992 Limits of Acceptable Change Based Management Direction for the RNRAW for a more complete discussion of the LAC process. The factors monitored during the 2009 field season include: education, use and users, trails and roads, Wilderness characteristics, vegetation, vandalism, wildlife, fire, goals and policies. Refer to Table 1 for a complete description of the factors, indicators and standards for each opportunity class (OC).”

In contrast, in 2006 when this DEIS was announced in the Federal Register, OBDOG made a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to provide the data, documents, and/or Staff Report which substantiated the GGNRA’s claim that there was controversy over the dog policy, compromised visitor and employee safety and resource degradation which warranted this DEIS. The GGNRA’s response merely stated: “The Staff Report and other documents you seek do not exist at this time”.

An appeal to the Department of the Interior regarding this FOIA request elicited the following response after several letters: “Since the Department has not made a determination on your appeal within the time limits set in the FOIA, you may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). However, we hope that you will delay filing the lawsuit so that the Department can thoroughly review the issues in your appeal and make a determination. We appreciate your patience to this point and the Department will make every effort to reach a decision on your appeal as soon as possible.” This letter is dated August 8, 2006. There has been no written response as of yet.

The lack of data or any documentation providing justification to proceed with this Environmental Review calls into question the intentions of the GGNRA. This DEIS is promulgated as the foundation for a policy change which does not address any identifiable problem. As such, the decision to proceed with the DEIS violates federal law because this agency action is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, this agency action, findings and conclusions should be set aside as prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706 (2)A.

This DEIS is also unlawful because its findings violate the enabling legislation for this National Recreation Area. As stated before, the enabling legislation requires adherence to sound principles of land use planning and management. The example of appropriate land use and planning and management here is the RNRAW. RNRAW management accepts that use can change the environment of the recreation area and wilderness. When the LoLo trail in RNRAW was being degraded by excessive use, they implemented a mitigating rule which limited groups using the trail to no more than 10 people at a time. The management at RNRAW did not use the degradation as an excuse to close the trail to humans.

On the other hand, increased usage over time was anticipated when this National Recreation Area was created. The House Report No 92-1391 made clear that the GGNRA would be confronted with problems in San Francisco that would require careful planning because of the high volume year-round visitation:

"As a national urban recreation area, this new component of the national park system will be confronted with problems which do not frequently occur at other national park and recreation areas. Great numbers of people can be expected to use the area-particularly those portions located in San Francisco County." (Pg. 11)

Yet here in the GGNRA, despite the huge numbers of visitors-human and canine, the GGNRA chooses now to limit access even when they cannot document degradation. Where is the careful planning? Where are the annual reports monitoring the state of the Recreation Area? What impacts have been documented? What are the acceptable levels of change in the environment? What mitigation has been proposed to address change that exceeds the acceptable levels?

RNRAW management also acknowledges external factors will create change and they choose to work to limit changes to an acceptable level. In the GGNRA, the adverse changes due to external factors are generally attributed to visitors and used to limit access. A perfect example of this would be Ocean Beach. The GGNRA’s own study concluded that the plover at Ocean Beach is affected more by a narrowing of the beach due to erosion than any activities of dogs or humans. The GGNRA’s response to this is to ban dogs from most of Ocean Beach in this preferred alternative. Also ignored is the data that establishes plover numbers have been higher when dogs are allowed here off-leash, or the data that concludes plovers are not disturbed in their foraging or feeding by off-leash dogs in the vicinity.

In fact, some of the greatest changes in the environment have been fomented upon the protesting public by GGNRA management themselves. So much for the citizen involvement as discussed in the RNRAW. At Fort Funston the creation of habitat by the GGNRA themselves killed off the majority of the Bank swallow population—not the activities of people or dogs. Yet the preferred alternative in this DEIS bans dogs from the majority of Fort Funston with the premise being the protection of the Bank Swallow.

The fact is that the National Park Service has had a shift in ideology, and this new ideology is in direct conflict with the enabling legislation and the promises the NPS made to citizens to persuade them and their governing bodies to turn over the properties that make up the GGNRA. The GGNRA is not above the law. This DEIS should be thrown out and the 1979 Pet Policy, in its original form, should be instituted as a Section Seven Special Regulation.

(Coming soon: proof from the NPS itself that it is knowingly violating the GGNRA's unique enabling legislation)

Satchel, Best of Winners

2011-03-13T11:06:00.001-07:00

Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club

When The Angels Fall

2011-03-08T21:03:00.000-08:00

For Our Baby, Jet

2011-02-28T09:23:00.000-08:00

May the blessed Mary of the Angels wrap you in her cloak of peace.

Satchie, BOW, Santa Clara Valley Kennel Club

2011-02-21T08:38:00.001-08:00

Satchie took Best of Winners again on Sunday, for the 4th time in his last 6 shows (and WD in the other two). He would be finished now if the 7th bitch had showed up. But he will always be a champion!!!!!

The GGNRA's DEIS Reflects A Conflict Between A "National Park" And "A National Recreation Area"

2011-02-17T14:14:00.000-08:00

(Courtesy of Dr. Suzanne Valente)

First and foremost, the GGNRA is, both in name and legislatively, a recreational area. Unfortunately, its management wishes otherwise. It is not governed by traditional notions of conservation but rather by its recreation first mandate.

"This conflict has become one of legislative intent: the GGNRA/NPS desire to manage this Golden Gate National Recreation Area as a National Park, while the enabling legislation and the will of the people assert the management should reflect the unique requirement we have for recreational access in the GGNRA.

This is a long-standing battle we have waged; the GGNRA takes away recreational access, and the citizens turn to the courts to have access reinstated. It has been a colossal waste of time and money, and a hardship for the citizens because not only are we battling for our right to access; we are also paying for both sides of the debate.

Although the current dispute is in regards to off-leash recreation, there have been many disputes with GGNRA/NPS management reflecting this conflict between access for recreation versus the GGNRA’s desire to create an urban, behind-the-ropes national park; a "look but don't touch" area. Current GGNRA Superintendent Frank Dean was quoted in the NPS Traveler as saying about the DEIS; “This is truly a defining moment for Golden Gate National Recreation Area”. Dog guardians have proven to be the greatest obstacle to the GGNRA's desire to remove recreation from their name and the effective management of this Recreation Area. Should the GGNRA succeed in removing the right of access for dog guardians, the other recreational interests will not have a chance.

What follows is a partial list of the groups/interests who have had substantive disputes with GGNRA management: Sea Scouts, Stinson Homeowners Association, equestrians, Surfrider Foundation, hang gliding enthusiasts, SF SPCA, Peninsula Humane Society, SF and Marin Firefighters, Presidio Historical Association, In Defense of Animals, California Farm Bureau, Mycological Society of SF, Presidio Fire Department, Marin Humane, Animal Care and Control of SF, The Community of West Marin, Men’s Circle and Burners without Borders. Disability Rights Advocates is again in litigation (after a failed mediation) against the GGNRA for their failure to provide access to the disabled in most areas of the GGNRA. The City of Sausalito litigated against the GGNRA, as did bicyclists. The debacle at Drakes Bay Oyster Farm in which Dianne Feinstein intervened to resolve by legislation should also be mentioned as it exemplifies the shoddy (or most aptly "devious") “science” the NPS relies upon when it suits them. The goes on and on.

The GGNRA was established in part through a campaign in 1970 by Secretary of Interior Walter Hickel "to bring parks to the people", putting the National Park Service in a movement to increase outdoor recreation in urban areas. (U.S. Department of Interior News Release, September 14, 1970.) Congress established the GGNRA on October 27, 1972 "to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values.” (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460bb.)

In addition to this generic statement of purpose appearing in most national park statutes, Congress included two "specific provisions" unique to the GGNRA. First, the park was established "to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning." Second, the GGNRA enabling statute imposes a unique limitation on NPS's discretionary power for "management of the recreation area" by providing that the "Secretary of Interior ... shall utilize the resources in a manner which will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management."

When voting for Charter Section 7.403-1(a) authorizing the transfer of nearly 60% of the City parklands, the citizens of San Francisco were told that "the transfer of these lands is a technical resolution allowing the City and County of San Francisco to transfer city lands to the Golden Gate National Recreation area, a national urban park established in 1972 by Congress to preserve 34,000 acres of land and water in San Francisco and Marin for recreational use by all citizens." Aware that certain unique restrictions were included in the enabling statute requiring the NPS to maintain "recreational open space necessary for urban environment and planning", San Francisco adopted the "technical resolution" authorizing the transfer of City parks for "recreational use by all citizens." Allaying concern over the transfer of the property, the NPS promised the City that "historical recreational use" would be continued. The GGNRA has now expanded to include almost 80,500 acres, including lands in San Mateo County.

The 1979 Pet Policy was established as the official off-leash recreation policy for the GGNRA as required by the enabling statute and the promise made to the City. NPS issued press releases of the official off-leash policy (Lynn Thompson memo to Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods, 10/17/78). Again, NPS told San Francisco this policy was developed because the "[e]xisting federal regulations' were not "a viable situation in an urban area". At the time this policy was created, off-leash access was limited to less than 1% of the acreage in the GGNRA. In contrast, today’s GGNRA has more than doubled in size, while the acreage available to off-leash recreation has been systematically reduced.

In 1989 the GGNRA, under the supervision of Brian O’Neill, signed on to a biosphere habitat program entitled “Man and Biosphere Habitat Programme” (“MAB” or “MAP”). One would be hard pressed to find a philosophy in greater conflict with the recreational priority of the GGNRA than that of Peter Bridgewater, Secretary of the MAB/MAP Programme, who has said, “Earth would be a better place if we had no people.” The GGNRA’s Chief of Natural Resources Management and Science, Daphne Hatch, has embraced this philosophy. She was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 7, 2005 as saying "Ocean Beach without the people is an incredible habitat. But people think of it as a sandbox or their backyard." Ms. Hatch has conducted the studies the GGNRA relied upon to close the majority of Ocean Beach to off-leash recreation. Ocean Beach (if you include the beach south of Sloat to Fort Funston) is 3.6 miles long. In this DEIS, the GGNRA proposes to ban dogs from 2.9 miles of this beach to include a .25 mile purported habitat for the Western snowy plover and a 2.65 mile “buffer zone”. The purported habitat is not critical habitat; no plovers nest or breed here. Two studies done here in the GGNRA have shown that 99.67% of the dogs observed do not chase plovers and that plovers are not disturbed in their feeding by off-leash dogs or people. These studies are not mentioned or relied upon in this DEIS, and the ban of dogs is a draconian measure imposed without consideration of potential mitigations. Further, the tides are so high and the erosion so great in this area of the beach that the GGNRA is forced to bulldoze the “habitat” each year when the plovers leave to breed elsewhere, and a portion of the adjacent highway has been subject to seasonal closures due to collapse. This is just one example of how it has become the pattern and practice of the GGNRA, in a broad scope, to create or declare areas as habitat adjacent to historic off-leash recreational areas, then utilize the proximal existence of “habitat” to justify the elimination of off-leash recreation and sometimes human access as well. It is not relevant to the GGNRA whether the “habitat” under consideration supports threatened or endangered species - all face maximum recreational restrictions. When a listed species is present, the GGNRA perverts ESA regulations so as to treat each area as if it is “critical habitat” (even if not classified as such by USFWS). Restrictions are imposed without consideration of mitigations or the analysis of the negative impact of the loss of access as opposed to the potential success of protection which is required by the ESA.

In 2001, the GGNRA reneged upon their 1979 Pet Policy and unilaterally eliminated off-leash recreation in the GGNRA entirely; citing that off-leash recreation was in violation of NPS Regulations. This action resulted in public outcry and the S.F. Board of Supervisors threatened reversion of certain properties. In 2005, United States District Court judge WIlliam Alsup noted in his decision affirming the legality of the 1979 Pet Policy in the GGNRA, his findings regarding the history of pet management in the GGNRA:

“In sum, for more than twenty years, the GGNRA officially designated at least seven sites for off-leash use. This was not accidental. It was a carefully articulated, often studied, promulgation. The responsible GGNRA officials in 1978 and thereafter presumably believed they were acting lawfully. Even now, the government concedes that the GGNRA had full authority at all times to relax the general leash rule at the GGNRA but argues it could have done so, at least after 1983, only via a “special regulation.” In other words, the agency allegedly used the “wrong” procedure back in 1978 (and thereafter) even though a “right” procedure to reach the desired result was available and could have been used. The government has not revealed its internal justification for following the “wrong” process. Whatever it was, the justification was abandoned in 2002 with the two-word explanation that it had been “in error.” With this ipse dixit, the NPS wiped away two decades of policy, practice, promulgations, and promises to the public.” (United States v. Barley, Order Of Affirmance, supra, p. 5; published decision at http:/www.ggnranews.blogspot.com.)

Despite the fact that GGNRA management had been given permission to create a Section Seven Special Regulation for off-leash recreation in the GGNRA; when the Court reinstated the 1979 Pet Policy, the Superintendent refused to make the 1979 Pet Policy a Section Seven Special Regulation. He instead instituted a Negotiated Rulemaking process that was unlawful and did not reach consensus. Subsequently, the initiation of the DEIS was announced. The explanation for this might be found in a quote from then Western Regional Director (now NPS Director) Jon Jarvis. At the NPS Centennial Initiative Listening Session (Presidio Officer's Club, San Francisco, March 22, 2007) Director Jarvis said to me and my husband, and I quote, "I would rather give up those [the GGNRA] properties than have dogs running loose on them." [This is not unlike the statement from Brian O'Neill that "I will not have dogs running loose in my park."]

In 2008, the GGNRA supported an attempt by Nancy Pelosi to surreptitiously slip a Park name change (and therefore a change in the governing mandates) from National Recreation Area to National Park through bill H.R. 6305. This action can be construed as an admission that the NPS/GGNRA is aware their actions do not conform to the enabling legislation. Public outcry upon the discovery of this section in HR 6305 forced Nancy Pelosi to withdraw her blatant attempt to circumvent the will of the people and the Federal Court.

Now in 2011, we are presented with this 2,400 page DEIS. The Federal Register states: “This plan will promote the following objectives: preserve and protect natural and cultural resources and natural processes, provide a variety of visitor experiences, improve visitor and employee safety, reduce user conflicts, and maintain GGNRA resources and values for future generations.” There is no mention of recreation or its value in this Recreation Area. With the addition of a “Compliance-based Management Strategy” the GGNRA has cleared the way to incrementally eliminate the few areas they recommend for off-leash recreation in the preferred alternative.

The enabling legislation requires the GGNRA to utilize sound principles of land use planning and management. Accepted practice would be illustrated by the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness (RNRAW) which produces an annual monitoring report. The report assesses current recreation trends, needs, and impacts, and thereby serves as a tool for long-term management of the RNRAW. When the GGNRA announced the DEIS in the Federal register, I filed a Freedom of Information Act Request (dated April 11, 2006) to provide the data, documents, and/or Staff Report which substantiated their claim of controversy over the dog policy, compromised visitor and employee safety and resource degradation which warranted this current DEIS. The GGNRA’s response merely stated: “The Staff Report and other documents you seek do not exist at this time”. An appeal to the Department of the Interior regarding this FOIA request elicited the following response after several letters: “Since the Department has not made a determination on your appeal within the time limits set in the FOIA, you may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). However, we hope that you will delay filing the lawsuit so that the Department can thoroughly review the issues in your appeal and make a determination. We appreciate your patience to this point and the Department will make every effort to reach a decision on your appeal as soon as possible.” This letter is dated August 8, 2006. There has been no written response as of yet.

I am advised by legal counsel the lack of data to support the assertions used as justification to proceed with this Environmental Review would violate the enabling legislation; and also make this agency action arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. It is presumed this agency action, findings and conclusions should be set aside as prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706 (2)A. Further, when data regarding the actual citations/incidents was finally released to other parties through the Negotiated Rulemaking, we find that there are 37,709,444 dog visits per year (in the time frame of 2001-2006), and there was an "incident" reported for every 1,362,992 dog visits. (please note that an "incident" is any dog related event that is reported and is not neccessarily a dog bite).

It would seem there was no data available because the actual data did not support their decision to conduct the DEIS in the first place. There is also the matter of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of SF and the GGNRA. It would not seem that the GGNRA has allowed the City the ability to oversee management decisions as was originally intended when the properties were turned over for inclusion into the GGNRA."

It is incumbent upon the City to continue to insist that the Park be used for its primary purpose - recreation. Otherwise, the City has a trust obligation to take back its former lands from the despotic rule of the GGNRA.

The Plover "Science" in the GGNRA's DEIS is Fundamentally Flawed

2011-02-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

This is an addendum to the Ocean Beach DOG comment previously submitted to the GGNRA with respect to the 2008 closure of a section of Ocean Beach referred to as the “Plover Protection Area”. This addendum is intended to supplement the previous comment and respond to the new plover issues as outlined in the 2011 DEIS for the GGNRA.

As noted in the original comment, this 2011 DEIS again fails to mention a 2007 study by Meg Warren of U.C Berkeley which found that plover feeding is not negatively impacted by recreational activities of humans and dogs. This is critically important because the plover does not nest or breed at Ocean Beach or Crissy Field; its primary activity here is feeding and foraging for food. Instead of acknowledging the Warren study, this DEIS relies in large part upon a study by Matthew Zlatunich and Michale Lynes of the Golden Gate Audubon Society. This new study, like the Warren study, was conducted in cooperation with the GGNRA.

The new Zlatunich study was conducted in 2009/2010 at Crissy Field in San Francisco. The study exhibits many of the scientific shortcomings noted in OB DOG's original comment, most notably that the study is merely observational in nature.

The observational collection of data was performed by Audubon volunteers who had a bias — Audubon has publicly advocated the banning of dogs to protect the plover; yet their study made no attempt to ascertain comparative effects on the plover. There is no discussion of the disturbance level perpetrated by other sources, even though they tell us that data was collected.

Raw data is not provided to the reader.

The analysis is biased and untrustworthy because it is based upon incomplete data. For example, the level of disturbance is not categorized in the analysis even though we are told they were categorized in their collection.

Assumptions are made in the Audubon analysis without supporting explanation. For example, they decided to assign the disturbance to an on-leash dog if he was closer to the plover than his guardian. This ignores the possibility the disturbance was due to the number of bodies such as two people walking which coud disturb a plover to the same extent as a leashed dog and a person.

To clarify the issue of comparative disturbance, it seems odd that although known predators of the plover are acknowledged to be at Crissy Field, no attempt is made to analyze the disturbance they create for the plover. The Common Raven and American Crow are present, yet ignored in the analysis. Beyond this, the California Gull is noted as being present. This is of interest because a recent study using surveillance cameras at plover nesting sites in San Francisco Bay documented California Gulls as being responsible for 25% of all predation of plover nests. (Robinson-Nilsen, Caitlin1, Jill Bluso Demers1, Cheryl Strong2, and Scott Demers 3; 1 San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, crobinson@sfbbo.org; 2 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; 3 HT Harvey and Associates DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT ENHANCEMENTS AND PREDATORS FOR WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER). California Gulls are new to some of these areas. Thus, the decline in the number of plovers at Crissy Field could well be related to an increase in the presence of California Gulls. Yet the study makes no attempt to ascertain if there is any such correlation.

The authors in this study note the number of plovers has been steadily declining since 2005/2006 records. They choose to rely upon previous conclusions that the greatest disturbance impact to wildlife within the Wildlife Protection Area at Crissy Field is caused by dogs, joggers and walkers. The data from this study showed the number of dogs and humans in the plover area spiked in 2008/2009, and declined dramatically in 2009/2010. The number of plovers continued to decline, despite the reduction in recreational disturbance in 2009/2010. This could lead one to conclude that there is no correlation between the number of dogs and people and the number of plovers present. There is no discussion of this possibility in the data analysis of this study.

This study is without scientific merit because it deliberately misleads the reader about the GGNRA’s legal obligations to protect the plover. Ocean Beach and Crissy Field are not designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. Therefore, the GGNRA is obligated only to prevent the harassment or taking of the plover within its boundaries. Appendix B contains the legal definition of a disturbance which would constitute harassment and be a violation of the law: “If the observer witnesses a blatant violation of the law, such as a dog owner knowingly and without regard allowing his dog to harass wildlife, the observer shall make note on the comment sheet and shall, upon completion of the survey, file a wildlife harassment report at the park police station…” There is no indication in this study analysis that any observer ever witnessed this type of harassment of a plover during their observations.

Alternatively, this study records “disturbances” which they define as minor, moderate and major—none of which rise to the level of the legal and accepted definition of a disturbance that is utilized by USFWS and other studies. For example, the authors state: “a minor disturbance will cause a resting bird to stand”. A clear thinking individual can conclude that a minor “disturbance” as defined by this study is really no disturbance at all. Worse yet, when analyzing the number of “disturbances” observed, there is no acknowledgement as to how many of these “disturbances” are actually minor, moderate or major based upon these authors' criteria. It is entirely possible (and probable) that each of the disturbances recorded and utilized to justify the restriction of recreation were merely minor “disturbances”. This would be consistent with the conclusions of other studies which have found: “…snowy plovers in other areas have become habituated to relatively constant and non-threatening human trail use.” (Trulio, Lynne1 , Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen2, Jana Sokale3 and Kevin Lafferty4 1 San Jose State University; Lynne.Trulio@sjsu.edu ; 2San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; 3 Sokale Environmental Planning; 4 Western Ecological Research Center, US Geological Survey NESTING SNOWY PLOVER RESPONSE TO NEW TRAIL USE.)

In summary, the GGNRA/Audubon study and its recommendations are flawed, dishonest and biased. The DEIS advocates recreational restrictions based upon this study. Clearly, the failure in this study to find any violation of the law with respect to the protection of the plover, and the omission of studies that contradict the need for recreational restrictions render this aspect of the DEIS invalid and discredit the conclusion that recreational restrictions must be implemented to protect the plover in the GGNRA.

A Tribute to Jack

2011-02-13T11:14:00.001-08:00

http://newfieworld.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=386

The GGNRA DEIS Ignores Independent Studies Showing That Off-Leash Recreation Does Not Impact Plovers

2011-02-10T09:41:00.000-08:00

In its Draft EIS, the GGNRA continues to ignore recent scientific atudies whose findings do not serve the purpose of eliminating off-leash recreation.

One example is a U.C. Berkeley Environmental Sciences study presented by Megan Warren on
May 7, 2007 which concludes that within the GGNRA, the feeding of the Western Snowy Plover does not appear to be negatively affected by human and pet recreation. This is highly significant. Because the Western Snowy Plover does not nest or breed at Ocean Beach or Crissy Field, its primary essential activity is foraging and feeding. If human and pet recreation does not negatively affect those activities, there is no need to restrict recreation in these areas.

The abstract states, in pertinent part:

Recreation Disturbance Does Not Change Feeding Behavior of the Western Snowy Plover

"The Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is a small shorebird that has many scattered wintering populations along the Pacific Coast of the United States, including several in the Bay Area.

"This species has been listed as threatened since 1993 under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. For this study I measured disturbance rates, types, plover responses and feeding time in three different sites in the San Francisco Bay Area to explore the link between recreation disturbance and feeding behavior. I predicted
that as frequency of disturbance increased, the birds would spend less time actively foraging and more time alert. However, data showed no significant relationship between feeding behavior and direct disturbance by human recreators. Instead, I now predict that recreation has a more indirect effect on the western snowy plover feeding behavior. Future research should focus on indirect effects of recreation, such as habitat disturbance and food source quality."

One must seriously question the efficacy of the DEIS in completely ignoring such studies and instead relying upon the findings of its own staff, which are not scientifically viable but are inherently biased.

Environmental Impact in the GGNRA: People or Dogs

2011-02-05T15:00:00.001-08:00

From five years of Incident Reports obtained from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the charts below demonstrate that the recreational (and other)activities of people have a far more destructive impact on the environment than do off-leash dogs, who are only allowed in less than 1% of the GGNRA per the 1979 Pet Policy.

So one has to ask, why did the GGNRA spend millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a 2,400 page Draft EIS in order to attempt to make its case against off-leash recreation, yet ignore the impact of people? The answer is clear: this is not science aimed at objectivity but rather aimed at a fait accompli to eliminate dogs from the GGNRA. Shame on them and those who continue to aid and abet their fraud on the public.

Crufts Magazine - Return of the Sea Dog

2011-02-01T09:32:00.000-08:00

GGNRA Proposed Ban on Off-Leash Recreation at Crissy Field and Ocean Beach

2011-01-27T10:44:00.000-08:00

The DEIS just put out by the GGNRA, at least insofar as it concerns the proposed closures of the east and west beaches at Crissy Field, and 2.2 miles of Ocean Beach, due to the presence of the Western Snowy Plover, is without any scientific basis.

When the Federal Government moves to ban a single class of people from public land because of who they are, not anything they have done, they better have solid scientific evidence that the move is absolutely necessary. That is not the case here. Claims of "disturbances" of plovers by off-leash dogs are anecdotal. Reports are based on observations with no attempt to address or correct bias in the people making the observations (Golden Gate Audubon Society). The reports are based on commonly repeated assumptions that have never been put to the test. The GGNRA is moving to ban people with off-leash dogs from two large areas on Ocean Beach and Crissy Field solely because of who they are -- people with off-leash dogs -- not because their dogs have done anything. Other user groups that cause similar (and possibly greater) "disturbances" to the plovers are not banned. Without undisputed, solid evidence that proves off-leash dogs cause signficant "harm" to plovers, the GGNRA should not adopt a discriminatory ban against this single class of people -- those with off-leash dogs.

Some talking points to consider:

1) There is no scientific consensus that off-leash dogs have a significant impact on bird and wildlife populations.

A recent study by Forrest and Cassady St. Clair (2006) (see below for citation information) studied diversity and abundance of birds and small mammals at 56 sites in urban parks in Edmonton, Alberta. To their surprise, they found that whether a site was on-leash or off-leash had "no measurable effect on the diversity or abundance of birds and small mammals." Indeed, they said, "wildlife, particularly birds, in suburban and urban areas exist there because they are fairly tolerant of moderate levels of human activity."

2) The GGNRA's own studies indicate that dogs have no significant negative impact on the population of snowy plovers at Ocean Beach.

The November 15, 1996 report of snowy plovers by GGNRA staffer Daphne Hatch found that there was an increase of more than 100% in the number of snowy plovers in the years after the 1979 Pet Policy went into effect (allowing off-leash dogs on Ocean Beach and elsewhere). There was no negative relationship between the number of dogs and the numbers of plovers on the beach at the same time. Indeed, the 1996 Hatch Report says: "Factors other than the number of people or dogs, possibly beach slop and width, appear to exert greater influence over Snowy Plover numbers on Ocean Beach."

3) The GGNRA's own data indicate that there was no negative impact on plover abundance after the court rulings reinstated the 1979 Pet Policy allowing dogs off-leash on Ocean Beach. Indeed, the numbers actually increased.

A follow-up 2006 Hatch Report considers effects on the numbers of plovers after two Federal Court rulings reinstated the 1979 Pet Policy, allowing off-leash dogs back on Ocean Beach. According to the study, the maximum number of plovers ever recorded was in 1994, at a time when there were no restrictions on off-leash dogs on Ocean Beach. Numbers of plovers have varied since then (from a low of 14 in 2000 to 35 in 2005), but there is no correlation between when numbers of plovers were low and when dogs were allowed off-leash. Over the same time period, similar changes in plover populations have been seen at Half Moon Bay State Park. At that beach, there was once a maximum of 60 plovers, but there are currently only 25-30 present. This decrease cannot be blamed on dogs since dogs are not allowed on the beach at the state park at all, even on-leash. Clearly any decreases in plover populations in recent years are unrelated to whether off-leash dogs are present or not. Indeed, data from the 2006 Hatch Report posted by the GGNRA on its website actually show an increase in plover numbers in 2005, the year after the decision in United States v. Barley. The annual mean of snowy plover numbers (total number of plovers observed during all surveys in a year, divided by the number of surveys done that year) show an increase in plover populations after the Court rulings (from 26.55 in 2004 to 31.30 in 2005). The annual snowy plover median listed (the number of plovers counted in a single survey, with half the surveys counting more plovers than the median number and half the surveys reported less) is 28 for 2004 and 33 for 2005.

4) People without dogs pose an equal "risk" to plovers, yet there is no attempt to restrict their access to the plover areas.

Unable to prove any impact on plover population numbers, the 1996 Hatch Report argued that dogs "disturb" plovers. However in the entire 1.5-year study, only 19 out of 5,692 dogs -- less than one-third of one percent -- were observed deliberately chasing plovers, and none was reported to actually catch or harm a bird. The report adds that on another 15 occasions, at least 100 additional plovers were "inadvertently disturbed" by dogs, comparing this to the 48 plovers inadvertently disturbed by people without dogs, implying dogs inadvertently disturb plovers at least twice as often as people alone. But a closer reading of the report shows that the disturbances from people were noted in about half the recording time (24 hours of observations) as that devoted to studying dogs (40 hours). Had the two groups been observed for equal amounts of time, the number of disturbances would have been nearly the same. Yet there are no proposed restrictions on people without dogs who walk or run through the plover protection areas.

Note that in the 2006 Hatch Report, an incident is classified as a "disturbance" when, in response to an off-leash dog, a plover lifted up its head and looked around. This overreaching and misuse of the term "disturbance" illustrates the bias inherent to the Hatch observational studies.

5) The Federal Government cannot make policy decisions (such as this proposed closure) that are based on assumptions that have no hard data to back them up.

The assumption that any disturbance of plovers or other shorebirds causes significant problems for the birds is repeatedly stated as fact. However, even the 1996 Hatch Report says that "Little research has been conducted on the energetic effects of disturbances, and on whether individuals can compensate for this lost energy intake and increased energy expenditure." One recent study, conducted as part of a Senior Research Seminar at U.C. Berkeley did test the commonly repeated assumption that recreational disturbances changed the feeding behavior of snowy plovers. Megan Warren (2007) found no significant relationship between feeding behavior and direct disturbance by people recreating on the beach. "The Crissy Field study did not provide any relevant results, however, the data from the two Point Reyes study sites do not support the hypothesis that western snowy plovers in more heavily disturbed areas devote less time to actively foraging and more time to being alert." What other often-repeated assumptions about the effects of disturbances on plovers and other shorebirds will be similarly disproved when studies are done that put them to the test? Do we really want to restrict an entire class of people based on unproven assumptions?

6) The studies of off-leash dogs in the GGNRA do not consider "real" threats to plovers from natural predators like ravens.

Off-leash dogs may be more likely to chase ravens, a natural predator of plovers, because the ravens are so large. Thus the presence of off-leash dogs may keep ravens away from plover areas. This is one possible explanation for why the numbers of plovers increase when off-leash dogs are present.

7) If the GGNRA was sincere about protecting plovers, they would put up "temporary" fences to keep ALL park visitors out of the plover protection areas, not just people with offleash dogs. To restrict only one class of park users and not others who have similar "effects" is discriminatory.

8) The GGNRA has not taken any other action to protect plovers, despite clear opportunities to do so.

During the recent Cosco Busan oil spill, the GGNRA quickly erected floating booms to keep oil from entering the Crissy Field lagoon at the eastern end of Crissy Field, yet made no attempt to similarly protect the plover area at the western end of the beach. The oil posed a significant risk to the plovers, yet the GGNRA did nothing to protect them from it. Indeed, oiled plovers have been reported in the GGNRA. The GGNRA has allowed sporting events like the 2006 Turkey Trot to proceed, with the result that at least 1000 people (more likely 1500) walked or ran through the plover protection area on Ocean Beach. Park rangers routinely drive four-wheel drive cars and trucks through the Ocean Beach plover protection area while pursuing people with off-leash dogs. During Fleet Week, the plover protection area at Crissy Field is filled with people watching the air show, with no restrictions or protections in place. Dead sea mammals are left on beaches, encouraging natural predators of plovers like ravens to come to the beach.

9) The GGNRA should focus enforcement on off-leash dogs who actually do chase plovers. Banning an entire class of people (those with off-leash dogs) from the area because of the actions of a very few is discriminatory and does not offer the plovers any significant increase in safety.

In order to ticket people with off-leash dogs in the plover protection areas, Park Rangers will have to be present at the sites. They could, therefore, easily cite people whose dogs chase plovers (the few) and leave those people whose dogs ignore the plovers (the vast majority) alone.

10) Even if the restriction is justified, the area closed at Ocean Beach is much too large.

The plovers are located down by Noriega Street, and yet the area closed begins near Lincoln, nearly six city blocks farther north. A similarly large buffer zone is claimed at the southern end of the plover area. The buffer zones are too large and should be shortened.

In short, the proposed closures are based on arbitrary and capricious "science". Tell the GGNRA (via a template on the Ocean Beach DOG website) to keep the 1979 Pet Policy as the law. The federal government has no business in our backyard!!!!!

Scientific Citations:
1) "Effects of dog leash laws and habitat type on avian and small mammal communities in urban parks," Andrew Forrest and Colleen Cassady St. Clair, Urban Ecosyst (2006) vol 9, p. 51-66
2) "Recreation Disturbance Does Not Change Feeding Behavior of the Wester Snowy Plover", Megan Warren, UC Berkeley Environmental Sciences 196, Senior Research Seminar, May 7, 2007

Shedding Light on M. Bruce Grosjean

2011-01-24T08:39:00.000-08:00

A few years ago, one Bruce Grosjean wrote a very angry letter to Ocean Beach DOG. In it, he emphasized that he was a very private man, and did not want anything about him published on the website. He said, if memory serves us correctly, that he had nothing against off-leash recreation in the GGNRA, but just wanted to stay out of the public eye.

Was he telling the truth? In today's San Francisco Chronicle, he appears loudly against off leash recreation. He claims (in a letter to the Editor) that banning dogs from the GGNRA will serve "the National Park Service . . . mandate to preserve and protect our previous park resources."

Well we know he wasn't telling the truth a few years ago, but is he telling the truth now? Does he have the slightest clue about the GGNRA's unique legislative mandate for recreation-first?

Here are some facts Bruce Grosjean should ponder:

In 1973, San Francisco voters were asked to give the National Park Service (“NPS”) jurisdiction over local parks. In return, the voters were promised that recreation opportunities would not be limited. In fact, the public was assured no one would even notice the change. To address concerns from city officials and citizens over the release of this land to the federal government, certain unique restrictions were inserted into the enabling statute. In particular, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (“GGNRA”) was established for “maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning.” (16 U.S.C. Section 460bb.) Relying on this language and representations by city officials that this was merely a “technical resolution” that would not affect “recreational use by all citizens,” the people of San Francisco approved in 1973 a Charter Amendment Proposition F, which permitted the transfer of these city parks to the federal government. The use of these parks specifically for off leash recreation was further addressed during the hearings before the United States House of Representatives, and dog walking was an enumerated activity in the U.S. House Report (H.R. Rep. No. 1391 at p. 4854.)

To formalize those needs as to off leash dog walking, extensive public hearings were held, culminating in the 1979 Pet Policy. At that time, the public was assured that off leash dog walking would be respected and preserved. And for well over 20 years, the recreation needs of the community have by and large been honored, with wildlife and recreation coexisting peacefully within what is now the GGNRA. In the early 1990's, to oversee the expansion of the GGNRA with the transfer of control over the Presidio, a new influx of NPS staff arrived. That's when the trouble started....

Since 1991, the National Park Service has closed over forty acres of Fort Funston’s best, most coveted recreation space. Combined with unilateral “revocation” of off-leash dog walking at Lands End, Fort Miley, Marin Headlands, parts of Ocean Beach, the Presidio and elsewhere throughout the GGNRA, NPS staff have not only broken promise after promise with park users, interested parties and even government officials, the NPS has also violated its own regulations, U.S. Department of the Interior policies, federal law and undermined the role of the Citizens Advisory Commission (“CAC”).

Since 1992, NPS staff has justified the conversion of recreational park resources to native plant habitats under the guise that such action is the national park mission. The mission of the GGNRA, however, is embodied in statute and legislative history creating the park. Indeed, the NPS’s own regulations and management policies underscore the importance of the specific language contained in the enabling legislation establishing each national park. Each park has a specific purpose unique to the cultural and ecological setting where it is located.

In fact, courts look to the enabling statute and legislative history establishing the specific park unit to ascertain the scope of activities permitted in each park. (National Rifle Assoc. of America v. Potter (D.D.C. 1986) 628 F. Supp. 903, 911, reviewing U.S. House of Representatives Report to determine if GGNRA permitted hunting and trapping.)

NPS management policies also specifically provide that, “Congress has stated in the enabling legislation of most units of the national park system that they have their own particular purposes and objectives.” (National Park Service Management Policies, at p. 2.)

Much of the San Francisco unit of what is now the GGNRA was originally city parkland donated to the federal government after the park was established. To address concerns from city officials and citizens over the release of this land to the federal government, certain unique restrictions were inserted into the enabling statute.
In particular, the GGNRA was established for “maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning.” (16 U.S.C. Section 460bb.) Relying on this language and representations by city officials that this was merely a “technical resolution” that would not affect “recreational use by all citizens,” the people of San Francisco approved in 1973 a Charter Amendment Proposition F, which permitted the transfer of these city parks to the federal government.

Legislative history and “land use planning” events developing the general plan and natural resources plan further confirm that the NPS understood that off- leash dog walking was a “recreational” activity “necessary to urban environment.” The use of these parks specifically for off-leash recreation was addressed during the hearings before the United States House of Representatives, and dog walking was an enumerated activity in the U.S. House Report. (H.R. Rep. No. 1391 at p. 4854.)

NPS management policies further advise that,
Park managers should ascertain park-specific purposes and management direction by reading the park’s enabling legislation or proclamation and determine general management direction, not inconsistent with the enabling legislation...
Wide variations exist in the degree to which the laws and proclamations creating the individual units of the national park system prohibit or mandate specific guidance on particular management actions... (Id.)

Other NPS policies mandate the same analysis:
The purpose of a park, program or central office is usually defined in, or derived from, the unit’s enabling legislation and from other legal documents providing for its establishment.... Purpose statements represent the government’s commitment (Congress’ expectation) to the public how an area will be managed for the public benefit...
Purpose statements provide the foundation for everything that a park staff does in a park, and everything that is done by a program or central office. These purpose statements set the parameters for how a park should be managed and used, and provide the standards and rationale against which the appropriateness of decisions can be tested. In other words, purpose statements put sideboards on what activities are appropriate in the park, or for a program or central office, and define how the park’s resources should be managed and what types of visitor experiences should occur...
Purpose statements are usually presented in the form of an infinitive statement: “To protect...” or “to preserve and interpret...” and “to provide...” Purpose statements are what you would answer a congressional committee if asked “Why does your park (program or central office) exist?” (Field Guide to National Park Service Performance Management, May 1998, emphasis added.)

Why does the GGNRA exist? It is not to create fenced native plant habitats off limits to the public. As evidenced by its name, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a recreation center, surrounded by a heavily populated urban environment. And it is the GGNRA’s recreational value that was of the utmost importance to the Congress that established this great urban park. In their words, the GGNRA was to be a “new national urban recreation area which will concentrate on serving the outdoor recreation needs of the people of the metropolitan region,” and its objective was “to expand to the maximum extent possible the outdoor recreation opportunities available in this region.” (H.R. Rep. No. 1391, 92nd Cong., 2nd Session (1972).)

Contrary, therefore, to any allegations by the NPS that dog walking is a “privilege,” subject to the “discretion” of the Superintendent which can be “revoked” at any time, public use of the land for recreation generally, and off leash dog walking specifically, is an important community right, which this Commission—like the Courts—can, and should, defend. That mandate is the government’s covenant with the people.

Perhaps now Bruce Grosjean will shut up before he purports to state what is and what is not the mandate of the GGNRA.

An Open Letter to Howard Leavitt of the GGNRA

2011-01-23T09:59:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Leavitt:

You do not seem able to tell the truth, so we are writing to set your lyin ass straight. You have continuously stated that with respect to the 1979 Pet Policy, "If you ask 100 people in this park, not one of them could tell you what the rules are on dogs".

You are full of shit. There are three pages that the GGNRA continues to hide from the public to justify this lie. The two pages of the 1979 Pet Policy state where dogs may be off-leash and subject to voice control. The one page 1986 Compendium Amendment thereto added a few additional sites, and specifically defines "voice control". It is very simple and has worked very well. But you and the rest of the GGNRA will continue to lie because your are liars and your goal is to completely eliminate off leash recreation in the GGNRA. Why not just attempt to tell the truth you jerk.

That is all (for today).

Satchamoose - BOW in San Mateo

2011-01-20T09:45:00.000-08:00

GGNRA Draft Environmental Impact Statement: The Poison Pill

2011-01-15T22:33:00.000-08:00

The 2,400 page GGRNA Draft Environmental Impact Statement purports to offer its proposed alternative (almost everywhere on leash or no dogs at all) and then several alternatives. However, buried deep within the document is the GGNRA's poison pill, which itself demonstrates that the alternatives are illusory - nothing more than a default to the GGNRA's desired change:

"In order to ensure protection of resources from dog walking activities, the dog walking regulations defined in action alternatives B, C, D, and E would be regularly enforced by park law enforcement, and compliance monitored by park staff. A compliance-based management strategy would be implemented to address noncompliance and would apply to all action alternatives. Noncompliance would include dog walking within restricted areas, dog walking under voice and sight control in designated on-leash dog
walking areas, and dog walking under voice and sight control outside of established ROLAs.

If noncompliance occurs, impacts to resources have the potential to increase and become short-term minor to major adverse. To prevent these impacts from increasing or occurring outside of the designated dog walking areas the NPS would regularly monitor all sites. When noncompliance is observed in an area, park staff would focus on enforcing the regulations, educating dog walkers, and establishing buffer zones,
time and use restrictions, and SUP restrictions. If compliance falls below 75 percent (measured as the Executive Summary xiv Golden Gate National Recreation Area
percentage of total dogs / dog walkers observed during the previous 12 months not in compliance with the regulations) the area’s management would be changed to the next more restrictive level of dog management. In this case, ROLAs would be changed to on-leash dog walking areas and on-leash dog walking areas would be changed to no dog walking areas.

This change would be permanent. Impacts from noncompliance could reach short-term minor to major adverse, but the compliance-based management strategy is designed to return impacts to a level that assumes compliance, as described in the overall
impacts analysis, or provide beneficial impacts where dog walking is reduced or eliminated."

A ruse by any other name is still a ruse!!

GGNRA Hellbent On Elimination Off-Leash Recreation On Bay Area Beaches

2011-01-13T10:20:00.001-08:00

The following article appears in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
Another prolonged fight for our rights is underway with the despots who would ban our dogs (particularly our water rescue dogs) from the beaches and waters.

Thursday, January 13, 2011 (SF Chronicle)
Federal Plan Would Ban, LeashDdogs In Many Parks
(Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer)

"Dog owners in the Bay Area will get their chance Friday to chew over a
voluminous management plan for man's best friend on Golden Gate National
Recreation Area land - a proposal that would require dogs to be leashed in
many areas where they once ran free and would ban them entirely from other
areas.

The preferred alternative outlined in the new 2,400-page document says
park officials should keep dogs out of parts of San Francisco's Crissy
Field, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston. They would be banned entirely at Muir
Beach, a decades-old hound haven in Marin County.

The exhaustive plan, which at 14.7 pounds weighs twice as much as a
Chihuahua, was deemed necessary in large part because past efforts to
restrict off-leash dogs infuriated pet owners, who say there is no way to
give a canine adequate exercise on a leash.

Protests, civil disobedience and court challenges ensued, and at one point
San Francisco supervisors threatened to take back parklands from the
federal government if off-leash rights were revoked.

Leash laws were eventually implemented on portions of Ocean Beach under an
emergency order to protect the snowy plover, a federally protected bird,
but a 2005 U.S. District Court decision prohibited controversial changes
in the recreation area's 1979 pet policy unless the park completed a
lengthy public rule-making process. Balancing needs of users

Frank Dean, the superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area, said the proposal is an attempt to balance the needs of all the
users while protecting natural and historic resources.
"The status quo is not really tenable," Dean said. "It's confusing where
you can go with your dog, and some people are not comfortable with dogs.
... Our goal here is to bring some clarity to it. It will remain the only
national park where you can take your dog off-leash."

The combination dog management plan and draft environmental report
analyzes five alternatives for dog walking in 21 areas of the 75,000-acre
park, which encompasses parts of San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin
counties.

Dean said the goal of the draft plan is to come up with a policy that is
fair to everybody, but many canine fanciers have long been skeptical. They
believe the recreation area simply wants to rescind the 1979 policy, which
set aside about 1 percent of the park for people to romp free with their
furry friends. No day at the beach.

The recreation area's preferred alternative is likely to curl a few more
lips, particularly in San Francisco and Marin.
Among other things, the plan would prohibit dogs on or off-leash at East
Beach, the most popular off-leash area at Crissy Field. The wildlife
protection area and tidal marsh at Crissy Field also would be off-limits
to dogs. Off-leash dogs would be allowed on Central Beach, a long section
of beach just west of the artificial tidal inlet, and in the central
grassy portion of the Crissy Air Field, according to the proposal. Ocean
Beach, Fort Funston

On Ocean Beach, off-leash dog walking would be allowed only north of
Stairwell 21, which is closest to the Cliff House. No dogs at all would be
allowed south of that area on the beach.

Fort Funston dog walkers would be limited to unleashing their pets south
of the beach access trail and north of the main parking lot. Battery
Davis, the Sunset and Horse trails and the bluffs overlooking the beach
would be off-limits. The parking lot, sand ladder and other trails would
require dogs to be on leashes.

All off-leash areas in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area would
require dog owners to have their pets under voice control.

The proposed ban at Muir Beach is sure to upset Marin County dog owners,
who have been among the most frequent beach visitors for 40 years,
especially on cold, windy and foggy days. The most galling aspect for the
dog-owning beachgoers is bound to be the fact that many of them supported
the restoration of the adjacent Redwood Creek tidal lagoon, which is now
being used as the primary reason for banning their four-legged companions.

Dog lovers in Marin won't be getting any breaks elsewhere if the park's
preferred alternative is selected: Of the six Marin County portions of the
national parkland where dogs currently run off-leash, including numerous
trails, only two would still permit off-leash dogs. Large increase in
visitors

Rover would still be allowed unleashed on the largest part of Rodeo Beach
in the Marin headlands, but not on the narrow southern portion, or South
Rodeo Beach. Oakwood Valley, which is often crowded with dog walkers,
would still allow unrestrained pooches, but only on a fire trail. The
lower section of Oakwood Valley Trail, which is used by dog walkers to
complete a hiking loop, would prohibit all dogs. The trail up to the ridge
that connects to Alta Trail would require leashes.

Most areas in the Peninsula would continue to require leashes, but the
proposal would prohibit all dogs on Sweeney Ridge.

The dog issue is a hot topic at least in part because of a dramatic
increase in the number of people visiting the recreation area over the
past two decades. As complaints about dogs and poop increased, bird lovers
started campaigning against what they called "domesticated predators."

Some conservationists say dogs trample native vegetation and disturb many
of the 75 protected species that live in or are dependent on the
recreation area for migration.

Stephen Sayad, who successfully fought a ticket for walking his dog
off-leash and is a member of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, said
former San Francisco Mayor Joe Alioto deeded Ocean Beach, among other
areas, for use only as recreation areas. Reversion provisions that would
allow the city to reclaim the beach were included, he said, in case the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area tried to block such recreation,
presumably including dog walking.
"Rest assured that a reversion action will be brought upon the first hint
by the GGNRA of any change," Sayad wrote in a recent e-mail.

The dog management plan will undergo a 90-day public comment period
starting Jan. 14. A final decision is not expected until 2012.

Public hearings on plan
See the plan or comment beginning Friday at parkplanning.nps.gov/dogplan."

Jet Goes To The Park

2011-01-10T08:41:00.001-08:00

With Uncle Satchie on the Lookout

Here Comes The Jet

2011-01-04T10:07:00.001-08:00

Happy Newf Year !!!!!

2011-01-03T11:41:00.001-08:00

Satchie WIns Again On New Year's Eve

2010-12-31T15:36:00.000-08:00

Winner's Dog and Best of Winners, San Mateo Kennel Club (December 31, 2010)

Satchie, Best of Winners, Santa Cruz Kennel Club

2010-12-29T16:08:00.000-08:00

Decermber 29, 2010

From Romania With Love

2010-12-24T13:26:00.000-08:00

BGCH Midnight Lady's Be Yourself (Jojo) x ROJCH Fekete Panda Lady King (Kally)

For Jack

2010-12-05T07:09:00.000-08:00

"If I should meet thee,
After long years.
How should I greet thee?
With silence and tears."
(Lord Byron)

Brothers

2010-11-30T15:54:00.000-08:00

"and all the virtues of Man without his vices . . ."

Meet The Newfoundland

2010-11-27T16:30:00.000-08:00

Another Newfoundland Saves The Day

2010-11-25T19:28:00.001-08:00

ROSEVILLE, MN (NBC) - A Roseville, MN, pooch has once again proven dogs just may have a sixth sense after all.

According to his owner and his neighbors, Murphy, a Newfoundland, helped save his 95-year-old neighbor.

Stephanie Goese noticed her usually quiet dog would not stop barking on Wednesday morning.

She finally let him outside. Murphy then darted straight to the fence and continued barking.

"At first I thought he was barking at a squirrel," Goese said. "But he was so persistent, so persistently barking and just kind of wouldn't give it up that I went and looked out the back window and could see the neighbor was needing help."

Goese found her elderly neighbor lying in her open garage in the chilling cold.

"We would have never seen her from the position she was in. I couldn't see her from the house. You certainly couldn't see her from the road," she said. "So if he hadn't alerted me, I never would've looked out the back window, and I don't know how long it would've been until she could've gotten some help."

Goese, a nurse, checked the woman out and determined she was fine. She believes that the woman had likely fallen minutes before she was discovered.

For his heroism, Murphy was treated to a steak Wednesday night.

"I'm very proud of him," Goese said. "He's a wonderful pet, but I think today he's maybe a little bit more."

Copyright 2010 NBC.

Letter To Des Moines, WA Police Department

2010-11-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

(a short one)

Dear Des Moines PD:

Meet the "vicious" Newfoundland dog.

Killing of Rosie the Newfoundland to Undergo Independent Investigation

2010-11-19T06:30:00.000-08:00

Was the November 7 shooting death of Rosie the Newfoundland by a Des Moines Police officer – with apparent consent by a sergeant and at least one other patrolman – a justifiable act to protect public safety?

Or did incredibly poor judgment and an appalling absence of common sense – and sensitivity – lead to an act of animal cruelty under state law?

While it’s premature to form a conclusion before the Des Moines Police Department completes its internal investigation, a written statement filed by the officer who pulled the trigger as part of his case report raises serious questions.

And, Mayor Bob Sheckler told The Waterland Blog on Nov. 17, the police department inquiry won’t be the final review of this tragic incident. The city will also have an independent outside agency conduct a separate investigation into the shooting.

In the meantime, this case has generated well over a thousand comments to local blogs, area news organizations, Des Moines council members and the police department, and Newfoundland group websites.

(One e-mail asked The Waterland Blog to clarify that this incident happened “in Washington state, not in Iowa.”)

Yet few people reacting to the death of Rosie have likely had an opportunity to read the written case report. Here, lifted in context, are key excerpts from the report filed by Des Moines Police Officer Graddon, who fired the four gunshots that killed Rosie.

After police were dispatched to the location where Rosie was wandering in the street, “The dog was barking at us, repeatedly, in a deep non-stop bark. As I attempted to get closer to the dog, it would start to get close to me, and would not back away….”

One of the officers took a digital photo of Rosie and sent it to Des Moines Animal Control Officer Jan Magnuson, who was off duty that Sunday. Magnuson advised them that she didn’t recognize the dog.

This was the last contact with Magnuson indicated in the report until after Rosie was gunned down. The report continues:

“As officers continued to attempt to approach the dog with the catchpole, the dog would come towards them, barking and showing its teeth. On two separate occasions, the dog charged at us quickly, and retreaded after shouts of, ‘Bad Dog Go Home’….

“Officer Arico deployed his Tazer, striking the dog in its side with two dart probe contacts. The dog immediately began to yelp, and ran off with minimal effect … As the dog was running, it appeared to be limping.”

Graddon reported that he then Tasered Rosie with minimal effect. She ran off again and was followed by the officers.

“The dog was located in a partially fenced yard hiding in the blackberry bushes … I observed the dog in the blackberry bushes, as it was facing me … I felt both my safety, and the safety of the public was in jeopardy because of this dogs vicious behaviors, and determined lethal force was necessary.

“Additionally, all other means, such as calling the dog, using a Taser, and a catchpole, had failed in an attempt to detain the dog. All assisting officers were behind me and asked if they were prepared for me to use lethal force on the dog. I was given the OK….”

Graddon then describes firing the four shots that killed Rosie as she cowered, terrified, in the blackberry bushes.

His report indicates that, before the shooting, neither he nor another of the officers called Magnuson a second time for referral to an animal rescue volunteer who could have been summoned to help them safely capture Rosie.

Had that happened, Rosie, who was not wearing a collar but had an ID chip, would have been reunited with her owners. There is also no indication whatsoever that time constraints prohibited them from doing this.

Police officers are trained to react with lethal force when seemingly benign encounters abruptly become life threatening. They are also trained to use lethal force as a last resort and, if at all possible, to use other tactics to subdue perpetrators.

Any police officer in any jurisdiction who fired even a single lethal gunshot at a human offender cornered in a back yard, cowering in blackberry bushes – unless facing a gun or a knife – likely would be charged with manslaughter.

Yet this poor dog, who had no gun, no knife, and was barking and baring her teeth only because she was frightened and threatened, was killed because the officers either didn’t understand this behavior and how to handle dogs – or didn’t care.

And it’s not enough for them to claim they first tried to Taser Rosie, a Newfoundland with a heavy coat – an act of futility that, in itself, suggests a lack of common sense.

There is speculation by many that one or more officers committed an act or acts of first- or second-degree animal cruelty under Washington state law (Revised Code of Washington 16.52.205, RCW 16.52.207, and RCW 16.52.210).

But, after the investigations are completed, it will be up to the King County Prosecutor to make that determination and, if charges are filed, up to a court to convict or acquit.

In the meantime, concrete steps can be taken to make sure than no pet owner – and no pet that is not a clear and present threat to public safety – ever again has to experience such a tragic occurrence.

City police departments and county sheriff’s offices must review now their training procedures for officers in dealing with loose dogs – and other animals – to provide an understanding of their behavior, especially when frightened or threatened, and how to deal with them safely and humanely.

If these training procedures are inadequate, they must be updated straightaway; if there are none, they must be put in place without delay. Pasado Safe Haven and animal rescue groups are good resources for law enforcement agencies that need to do this.

No officer who lacks compassion for animals, while certainly not a prerequisite for law enforcement, should ever handle animal control cases

And law enforcement agencies need a current list of contacts who are available 24/7 to bring in to assist officers in situations such as this. Had that been done in Des Moines on November 7, there is virtually no doubt that Rosie would be alive today.

Rosie the Newfoundland's Death Can Save Lives If We Are Willing To Listen And Make Changes -- The Highline Times / Des Moines News

2010-11-17T15:12:00.000-08:00

Rosie the Newfoundland's Death Can Save Lives If We Are Willing to Listen and Make Changes | The Highline Times / Des Moines News

(Editor's Note: The Board of Directors of the Newfoundland Club of Seattle wrote the following op-ed after attending the vigil for Rosie, the Newfoundland dog shot by Des Moines police. They said their hope is that this event can bring the community to a solution to prevent future incidents like Rosie's death).

Last week's shooting of Rosie the Newfoundland dog is tragic and nothing can ever bring her back to her family. But we don't have to accept this tragedy as the status quo.

A recent study of law enforcement killings of pet dogs estimate that between 1,000 to 1,300 dogs are shot and killed by law enforcement every year in this country.

That is too many. Rosie's death has given us an opportunity to take a hard look at how we as a community can avoid ever having to bury another family pet unnecessarily.

The lesson we can take from this incident is that proper training and education can go a long way in saving lives. Reviewing Rosie's shooting and news clippings regarding similar incidents around the country, a common pattern of facts recurs: police officers make first contact with the dog and quickly make the determination to use lethal force. By contrast, there are notably few incidents where trained animal control officers make the decision escalate a situation to the use lethal force.

This speaks volumes to the importance of training and a basic understanding of dog behavior.

Implementing a training program for the police force would take a minimal effort, but could pay dividends to the force and community. The framework for such a program has already been implemented by the City of Oakland, Responding to public outcry from a police shooting of a family dog, the Oakland police chief adopted a policy requiring that all of its police officers to receive training in animal behavior and proper methods for containing loose dogs. The program will be paid for by a partnership with a local humane organization. A similar program can and should be put in place in Des Moines and cities and counties throughout Washington. And after seeing the outpouring of support for Rosie and her family, we would venture to guess that there are droves of qualified dog behaviorists and trainers willing to take time to train police officers.
It is sadly ironic that Newfoundland dogs are renown for their gentleness and life-saving instincts. We can't help but feel that Rosie would still be with her family if the police officers involved had received training on animal behavior, proper contact and capture methods.

Let's give Rosie one last opportunity to save lives, if only through her death, by taking this moment to implement training and procedures that will protect families from having to endure the unnecessary loss of a cherished pet.

Board of Directors,
Newfoundland Club of Seattle
www.newfclubseattle.org

Police Shootings Of Dogs On The Rise

2010-11-17T08:13:00.000-08:00

The Whole Dog Journal (November 2010)

"Dog shootings by law enforcement seem to be on the rise.

Concerned owners are discussing ways to better prepare police for handling dogs.
In 2010, I noticed a surge in news articles concerning law enforcement officers who had shot a dog. Most recently, I read about an October 1 incident in Oakland, California, in which an officer responding to a home burglar alarm shot and killed the resident 11-year-old arthritic yellow Labrador Retriever. Another alarming article described the fatal shooting of Par-rot, a pit bull-mix who had bitten another dog at a Washington, D.C., street festival but was already controlled by his foster parent when police grabbed and shot the dog.

In another article, I read about two Labrador Retrievers who were killed in their own home – which also happened to be the home of the mayor of a small town in Maryland – when police served a search warrant on the wrong address.

Via YouTube.com, I learned of a case in which a police officer in LaGrange, Missouri, shot a dog who was clearly not a threat to anyone’s safety at that time. The
video was shot from the police car – and then somehow widely circulated on You- Tube. Two officers are present, but after one proves unable to maneuver the dog (who is secured by a control pole) into a truck by himself, he shoots the dog.
Horrified by this rash of cases, I started looking into how many dogs are killed by police. It appears that an average of 250-300 cases of officers shooting dogs are reported in the media every year. Randall Lockwood, PhD, ASPCA Senior Vice President for Forensic Sciences and Anti- Cruelty Projects, has also looked into this matter, and suggests that as many as an- other 1,000 cases may go unreported, for a staggering average of more than three dog shootings per day in the United States.

This issue is of concern to every citizen. Regard for canine life aside, every time an officer fires his weapon he also puts human lives at risk – as evidenced by a September shooting in which a Detroit police officer who shot at a pit bull actually hit and wounded an animal control officer who was present during a raid on a home. There are simply safer and more humane methods to deal with most of the dogs that police officers must handle during the course of their difficult jobs. Officers should have the opportunity to receive training in how to assess the potential for danger from dogs, and how to use their non-lethal equipment to handle potentially dangerous dogs.
I’ve created a yet-unnamed online group whose purpose is constructive discussion and strategy development to combat the apparently growing incidence of law enforcement officers shooting dogs without adequate justification. Join by sending a message to copsshootingdogs- subscribe@yahoogroups.com. This is not a site to bash law enforcement, but rather to engage in constructive discussions to find and promote positive solutions to this problem." – Pat Miller

Justice for Rosie/Newfoundlands Are Gentle | The Highline Times / Des Moines News

2010-11-16T08:51:00.000-08:00

Newfoundlands Are Gentle: The Highline Times / Des Moines News

2010-11-15

"I would like to comment on the recent incident where the Des Moines police gunned down a Newfoundland dog.

I understand the dog has escaped from its yard and was loose in traffic.

The dog was tasered and chased and ultimately shot to death 4 times.

I think this is absolutely horrific.

Newfoundland dogs are gentle and sweet by nature. It is very possible this dog gave the police a 'submissive grin', which looks like a dog is growling.

Why not call animal control? Why hunt the dog down mercilessly and kill it like a bunch of crazed animals themselves? Why not a tranquilizer gun?

The Newfoundland dog world is watching this and is horrified.

We hope you will put this atrocity on the news and launch an investigation in to why this happened."

Jenny Buchanan
Vice president
Newfoundland dog club of Canada BC Region

SLIDESHOW: Memorial for Newfoundland Dog Shot in Des Moines Sees Dogs and People in Mourning | The Highline Times / Des Moines News

2010-11-14T18:52:00.000-08:00

SLIDESHOW: Memorial for Newfoundland Dog Shot in Des Moines Sees Dogs and People in Mourning | The Highline Times / Des Moines News

Justice For Rosie The Newfoundland, Part Two

2010-11-13T17:05:00.000-08:00

Des Moines, Washington

2 Year Old Female Newfoundland Shot Dead By Local Police

Latest video: TV interview with the woman who was a witness to Rosie's shooting. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/107599853.html?tab=video
From the eyewitness to this horrific event: "As the witness to this event I will also say that Rosie never moved from her original position, they shot her exactly where she stood peering at me through the bushes. The officers were shooting at a still target in a fully fenced off yard. If I would have known that they were going to gun her down I would have stopped them. They should have told me.I would have let her stay in the yard for as long as needed. I also forgot to mention the officer chuckling as he explained to me that 'they had never had one this big before'. Not ever considering the danger and sadness they put upon my family. It makes me sick to my stomach to think this happened in our community."

More info including a copy of the police report: http://www.waterlandblog.com/2010/11/11/owner-of-shot-dog-says-senseless-police-shooting-killed-wonderful-dog

The entire police report: 10-2533 basic case.pdf

Afternoon Vigil in Remembrance of Rosie - A Life Cut Short - Sunday, November 14, 2:00 p.m. in Des Moines, Washington
Rosie was a 2 year old Newfoundland Dog, one of the "Gentle Giants" of the canine world. On Sunday November 7, her life was heartbreakingly ended when she was shot and killed by officers from the Des Moines police department. On Sunday November 14 at beginning at 2 PM, members of the Newfoundland Club of Seattle will join with the local community at 16th Ave S between 268th and 272nd St in Des Moines to remember Rosie and to show support for both the Wright family, Rosie's owners, and for Lora Perry and her family who were the unfortunate witnesses to this tragedy.
For more information contact: Richard Jack, president, Newfoundland Club of Seattle - rjack321@yahoo.com Newfoundland Club of Seattle website: www.newfclubseattle.org
SIGN A PETITION FOR ROSIE!
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!
To sign a petition for Rosie, go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/rosie-the-newfoundland-shot-by-police NOTE: If you have tried multiple times to submit your signature via the preceding link without success, instead send an email to: Rosie The Newfoundland to submit it that way. You will receive an automated reply thanking you for your submission. Please do not submit your signature using both links. If you have any questions, please email me at trunewfs_rescue@yahoo.com . Thank you for caring about Rosie.

On Facebook? Join Justice For Rosie at: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_166183500071259
Beautiful angel, Rosie

Justice For Rosie the Newfoundland

2010-11-12T10:27:00.000-08:00

(SeaTac News, November 12, 2010)

By Keith Daigle
2010-11-09

On Sunday Noember 7 Des Moines [Seattle] police officers responding to a roaming dog call, chased Rosie, a 200- lb. Newfoundland, into Lora Perry’s backyard where police officers shot and killed the dog.
“It almost seemed like it was a game to them,” Perry said, referring to the four officers, including a police sergeant, who responded to the call. She said the officer who shot Rosie had no remorse, and treated it like a challenge, saying an officer said, ‘I haven’t had one that big before.’
Perry is inviting anyone who wants to place flowers along the fence where Rosie was shot to bring them to 26852 16th Ave. S.
An incident review is being done to determine whether the officer’s actions were justified or not. After the incident review there will be a shooting review. Des Moines Police Sgt. Bob Collins said the officer felt lethal force was justified based on the dog’s previous aggressive actions.
“He believed it was the step he needed to take,” Collins said.
The officers on the scene tried to find the owner of the dog before attempting to apprehend it, Collins said. The dog did not have a collar on, and when neighbors asked a neighbor if they knew the dog they said they did not.
Police were also in touch with Des Moines Animal Control Officer Jan Magnuson, who was off duty, sending her a cell phone picture of the dog to see if she knew the animal and its owners. She said she did not.
According to the police report, when the police tried to capture Rosie with a catch pull, she would charge toward them quickly and retreat, barking and showing her teeth.
Officers then tased Rosie, who then ran away down the street. Officers continued to follow the dog, tasing her again with no effect.
Rosie then ran into Perry’s backyard and hid in the bushes. Perry said Rosie did not move from her position from the moment she noticed her to when police shot her.
Before police arrived Perry said her little dog was running around the large yard, searching for Rosie. Perry said at no point was Rosie aggressive to either Perry or her dog.
“(Rosie) was cornered and frozen and it did not move the entire time,” Perry said. “The dog was a gentle dog, it didn’t do anything wrong.”
Perry said her gate was open for a brief period, allowing Rosie to get in. She said the dog was in her backyard for at least 20 minutes before police showed up. By the time police came to the house the gate was closed, locking Rosie in.
Police officers came to her door asking if she had seen the dog they had been chasing. After officers came into the backyard they asked Lora to stay inside with her kids. Both Perry and Sgt. Collins say no attempt was made at that point to capture Rosie.
Perry said about a minute after police came into her backyard a police officer drew his firearm and shot Rosie four times.
“I could hear the dog crying and whining after the first shot went off,” Perry said. She said after the first shot she closed her eyes. “It was quick, they already had their mind set on what they were going to do,” Perry said. “Their main concern was shooting the dog.”
Perry said after the incident one police officer came into her house giggling about shooting the dog.
“I know without a doubt in my mind this is not what they should have done.”
A shooting review is not automatically conducted after an officer discharges their firearm at an animal, Collins said. Interim Des Moines Police Chief John O’Leary ordered the review, Collins said.
“It is a sad outcome,” Collins said. “We are public servant and we understand that there is going to be public accountability.
“Situations like this can deteriorate public trust.”

* * * * * * * * * *

In point of fact, Rosie was a mere 115 pounds, and the eyewitness account makes absolutely clear that she posed no threat to anyone at the time the cops shot her four times while she cowered in the bushes of a fenced in yard of a neighbor.
A memorial service will be held for Rosie on Sunday, November 14.
Hopefully, the cops and their supervisors will be prosecuted for their barbaric actions.

Lines To A Curled Up Frannie

2010-11-11T08:09:00.000-08:00

(For Dad on Veteran's Day)

We (Satchie & Andrew) wanted to bring you the story of our Grandpa and his first Newfie.

Grandpa served for several years in the U.S. Air Force in Italy and the Persian Gulf during World War II. He was a highly decorated Lieutenant and spent much of his time in dangerous reconnaissance work.

One of his last assignments came in leading a supply platoon into Russia during the winter of 1944. After successfully getting the supplies into the hands of Russian troops, Grandpa was approached by a young Russian soldier. The soldier had a Newfie puppy and he was being shipped out and could not take the Newfie with him. He pleaded with Grandpa to take the Newfie so that it would have a good home and not face a very uncertain future.

Grandpa agreed and the brief encounter between two soldiers was enough for handshakes and best wishes to be exchanged.

Only a few weeks later, Grandpa received his orders to return home after years away from Grandma and his family. He had named the puppy "Franny" and was very concerned about how he would get Franny back home with him. After considerable thought, he decided to see if the pilot of the Air Force plane would take some money and store Franny underneath the pilot's seat. The pilot agreed, and Grandpa put Franny in a cardboard box with holes in it so she could breath. He gave her a sleeping pill so that no one else would know of the precious cargo.

Well, all went well, and Franny made her way with Grandpa back to Chicago and then on to San Francisco, where she lived until 1958 with two daughters who loved her dearly. Grandpa had brought back a Persian rug he kept in his office overseas. He put it in his basement office at home when he got back, and he and Franny spent many fond hours there curled up on the rug.

Not long after finally getting home, Grandpa wrote a poem to Franny, entitled

"Lines To A Curled Up Franny":

"Little Franny, lax and lazy
With a mind extremely hazy
In regard to human cares
Far removed from worldly affairs.
"There you lie your tail around you
With no Charlotte to hound you
With no taxes to be met
With no spending to regret.

"There you snuggle on the Persian
Bothered not by reconversion
Void of grief and sacrifice
Dreaming dreams of cats and mice."

(Lt. Samuel D. Sayad, 1945)

Newfoundlands To The Rescue

2010-11-04T06:11:00.001-07:00

Brothers

2010-10-14T16:25:00.000-07:00

Satchamoose Goes Winner's Dog

2010-09-23T22:06:00.001-07:00

Sir Francis Drake Kennel Club, Saturday, September 18, 2010

Brothers in Petaluma

2010-09-12T20:23:00.000-07:00

Satchie goes Winner's Dog and Andrew goes RWD both days in Petaluma.

Sometimes It's Hard To Be A Newfie

2010-09-11T18:13:00.000-07:00

Andrew says "blech" to grooming.

Andrew Cools Off

2010-09-04T02:51:00.001-07:00

Scuola Cani Salvataggio Abruzzo

2010-08-30T12:09:00.000-07:00

Don't miss it!

Newfoundland Terrorist Located

2010-08-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

Details to follow . . . .

Italy's Lifeguards

2010-08-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

In this 2000 photo provided by SICS (Scuola Italiana Cani Salvataggio - Italian School of Canine Lifeguards), lifeguard dogs of the Italian school perform a makeshift rescue operation at an international lifeguard meeting in Winterbach, Germany. Hundreds of specially trained dogs form Italy's corps of canine lifeguards, deployed each summer to help swimmers who get into trouble in the nation's popular seas. Unlike their human counterparts, these life-dogs can easily jump from helicopters and speeding boats to reach swimmers in need of a rescue. With millions flocking to Italy's crowded beaches each summer, the Italian Coast Guard says it rescues about 3,000 people every year — and their canine helpers are credited with saving several lives.
(AP Photo/Courtesy of Italian School of Canine Lifeguards.)