Two-Minute Comment to GMP

There is great value in submitting a personal comment that includes your own personal insights and experience in the GGNRA and on the General Management Plan. However, if time is short, here are quick way to supports keeping recreation in the GGNRA. Remember, encourage everyone you know to submit a comment supporting keeping “recreation”.

1)   Open Here

 2)   Cut and Paste Responses

Form Question 1:

What proposals or aspects do you like about the preferred alternative in this Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DGMP/EIS)?

Creating additional recreational facilities and maintaining the neglected facilities that exist, particularly at Ocean Beach and Fort Funston.  This should be one of the top priorities for GGNRA funding.

Form Question 2:

Do you have any suggestions for improving the preferred alternative in this DGMP/EIS? If so, what are they?

The GGNRA Foundational Purpose should not be to “offer a national park experience”. The Purpose needs to specifically include “public use and enjoyment” and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space”.  Also, recreation needs to be the highest priority goal for evaluating all plans, and none of the plan alternatives provide the needed recreational open space for public use and enjoyment.

Plan to increase not decrease recreational use. Except for highly sensitive areas, remove “involve controlled access” and “aggressively administer”. These lands are part of local communities where millions of people should be actively encouraged to continue enjoying regular relaxation, exercise, and inspiration that make it one of the most valued and visited lands in America. Allow the same recreational activities to continue on these lands as occurs currently (e.g., dog walking, family events, running, informal sports, picnicking, etc.)

Form Question 3:

Do you have any other comments related to this DGMP/EIS?

I oppose the draft foundational purpose and all management alternatives for park lands in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties; the plan is deceptive and disregards the legislative mandate to “preserve for public use and enjoyment” and “provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space”. The plan effectively seeks to change the enabling legislation which is unlawful without an Act of Congress and also does not restore and maintain the recreational value agreed to when SF deeded Ocean Beach and Fort Funston to the US government.

Form Comments:

Please submit any additional comments in the box provided. You can enter up to 35,000 characters in the comment field (approximately equivalent to a 10 page letter). If you wish to send us more detailed comments, you may submit them in hardcopy by clicking on Print Form in the left navigation.

Also this plan was not publicized in an adequate or timely manner, and even the 60-day public comment period is not adequate to allow for meaningful participation by the general public.  This new draft plan only allows 47 days from the date of the press release for the community to learn about the draft plan, understand the major changes proposed, and respond.

Review GGNRA plan and comment here.


10 Responses to Two-Minute Comment to GMP

  1. bitter bob says:

    misinformation and misleading. unnecessarily enraging the public

  2. Susan Frankel says:

    I enjoy Chrissy Field and Ft Funston a few times a week and walk a small dog. The potential for these areas to be closed and/or regulated will have harmful effects on both species. Dogs not exercised as well as humans are a dangerous combination for the general public. And one of the perks of living in such beautiful landscape is being able to enjoy the richness of the terrain.

    As a dog owner I appreciate the footprint that both woman/man and dog create. I would be willing to pay a reasonable amount yearly and to have some sort of pass system in order to compensate for that priviledge. If everyone who utilized the parks were asked to contribute, perhaps the concerns regarding the state’s waning budget could be addressed. But it must be kept nominal so that everyone has access. Perhaps the dog walkers who make their living from walking dogs could have a different fee schedule contingent upon the numbers of dogs…. Those are my suggestions. thank you

  3. isabel saques says:

    I am SHOCKED to hear that the GGNRA is trying to make funston and ocean beach some sort of Yellowstone experience! Werent they at all interested in the board of Supervisors of SF vote which came from the large amount of san franciscans stating they want RECREATION for all to remain in the GGNRA. Every time i go to funston I see 90% of the people recreating with their dogs, picnicing with their dogs. I go to funston beach weekly and those are the folks i see there all the time, as well as the hang gliders. shame on youGGNRA!!!

  4. Roy says:

    I think dog owners have to recognize that dog ownership in an urban area is limited, due to irresponsible owners, concerns for children, peoples’ fears from past experiences, and in the case of Ocean Beach, the presence of rare bird species. What is a playground for us is home to the plovers and other migratory birds. I am shocked that in a progressive city like SF, people can’t appreciate the importance of Ocean Beach as habitat. And on a place like California, how over-used beaches are. My dog loves running offleash at the beach as much or more so than the next dog, but I will take responsibility for her and keep her on leash when necessary, just as I would near kids, poison oak, sheep, or busy streets. She is still happy getting out to walk and we still enjoy each others’ company. Why is that so hard?

  5. Kim says:

    Done. Followed the link and cut and paste and added my personal info. Thanks for making it easy. Pups need us.

  6. Eduardo Zelaya says:

    I am 82 yrs old and for the last 17 yrs I have walked the Fort Funston area with my dogs, It is good for my physical and mental health to see my dog socialized and run with other dogs. Several of us seniors walk every day at Fort Funston and are aware that improvements are needed, like decent restrooms and weekly clean the trails of sand so baby carriers and wheel chairs can be push. Leave Fort Funston as it is A RECREATIONAL AREA FOR PEOPLE AND DOGS.

  7. Katherine Gran says:

    The 1979 Dog Management Plan, in operation now thanks to a federal court order, works just fine for Ft. Funston and it should be left in place. Ft. Funston is not a wilderness and never will be; it is bounded north by a sewage treatment plan and by a golf course on the south and neither of these facilities is going to change their uses. Ft. Funston is a 1 1/2- mile stretch of land between the ocean and highway; it is an urban park with up to 8,000 visitors a day. This Draft General Management Plan seems to completely ignore the years of discussion, public forums, the 30,000 comments on the Draft Dog Management Plan for Ft. Funston and Crissy Field. This DGMP seems like an attempted end-run to regulate dog walking in some unspecified ways which, given the GGNRA’s past, will be to halt it altogether. This is against the will of San Franciscans as expressed by the Board of Supervisors vote against further encroachment on offl-lease dog walking at Ft. Funston and Crissy Field.

  8. Shari says:

    Thank you for posting this here and on Facebook. I was able to use your comments as a jumping off point when before I was unsure what to write!

  9. Jaye Schissel says:

    Here we go again with the GGNRA, trying to take away one of the best experiences in San Fran! Allowing the off leash parks to continue as they are, and providing the needed maintenance of the space, should be the top priority of GGNRA, not trying to restrict use to some pristine preserve. Recreational use is the best use of this land, as evidenced by the number of people and dogs visiting every day with joyful experiences. Occasional problems exist everywhere, and problems are the rare exception at Ft. Funston. We visit it 4-5 times/week, so we know this to be the case.

  10. Nada Djordjevich says:

    I am dismayed that we continue to have to spend time debating issues such as access to open space at Crissy Field and Ft. Funston. One of the distinguishing features of San Francisco as opposed to Los Angeles for example is that beautiful areas are open for all. We are a recreational community. Closing off beautiful areas for preservation without regard to their current use is quite distressing. The community and Board of Supervisors voiced their opinion. Crissy Field should not be treated as Yellowstone viewed from afar, but as a place where the community connects with beauty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s