PUBLIC SUBMISSION | As of: February 11, 2009 Tracking No. 8036722a Comments Due: January 22, 2008 |
Docket: NPS-2007-0168
Golden Gate NRA - Plover Protection
Comment On: NPS-2007-0168-0001
Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System
Document: NPS-2007-0168-0009
Comment on FR Doc # E7-22654
The proposed protections fall FAR short, for the following reasons:
1. On p. 65279, the GGNRA claims that the GGNRA permitted dogs to roam off
leash in the park historically. This is not accurate. The park never went
through formal or informal rulemaking to permit off-leash dogs, they just
brazenly ignored the rule on a local level through "compendium" amendments that
are not subject to public scrutiny. It was wink-and-nod policy, which is not
consistent with basic principles of good and honest government.
2. On p. 65278, GGNRA claims that increased enforcement of the restrictions
would be a good idea. We agree, but the rule contains no specific measures to
enforce and prosecute leash law violations, from the line officers and their
duties to getting NPS and US Attorney lawyers to prosecute violations. As
evident by Josiah Clark's recent situation, Park Police have been directed not
to enforce wildlife protection laws and this rule doesn't change that
institutional problem. A rulemaking must do something along those lines to be
effective by including an enforcement plan.
4. on p. 65280, the limits of this rule are made clear. These ?protections?
give away more than ? of the last remaining protected beach habitat at Ocean
Beach and a third of it at Crissy Field to off-leash dogs all year. This is
absurd in a National Park which contains a directive to preserve
imperiled species such as the plover. Where will they go instead: private lands
to the north or south of the park?
5. on p. 65280, the rule explains it is also temporary until the reg-neg
rulemaking process is over. This is again a cop-out, because these areas were
never on the table in the rulemaking process for off-leash dogs at any time of
the year. There is simply no reason for the GGNRA to make this rule a temporary
rule. Furthermore, reg-neg was an abject failure and reached no consensus on
protecting wildlife or park visitors from harm. It is also unrealistic for NPS
to think they?ll get closure from reg neg in 2009; it will be 2010 at least.
This rule should be permanent.
6. on p. 65280, the rule is inadequate and will lead to additional confusion
because it is only a seasonal closure and will not apply year round. Plovers are
present in the GGNRA almost year round, perhaps 1 or 2 months of the year they
are absent. By creating limited exceptions the GGNRA creates problems for
compliance and enforcement: it creates confusion for both anti-leash groups and
park police and therefore leads to enforcement problems.