Dog Groups Win Lawsuit Against GGNRA, Again

 

Photo by Danielle Revives

Our coalition of recreation and dog owners groups has prevailed in a federal lawsuit against the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for not complying with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The lawsuit was filed December 12, 2019 when the GGNRA tried using the proposed 2019 Superintendent’s Compendium to restrict dog walking access in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo Counties.

As part of the FOIA settlement, the GGNRA handed over 1,200 pages of records about dog walking related to the Superintendent’s Compendium and, subsequently, agreed to remove redactions on 36 pages of documents that were not consistent with FOIA applicable exemptions. The records revealed the severity of changes that were being undertaken that would allow the GGNRA to close trails to people with dogs and give the agency broad discretion to impound off-leash dogs.

Essentially, the GGNRA was unlawfully using the Superintendent’s Compendium to recycle some of the most controversial parts of its failed Dog Management Plan.

Attorneys Chris Carr, Navi Dhillon and an elite team at Paul Hastings LLP. represented Save Our Recreation, Coastside DOG of San Mateo County, Marin County DOG, and SFDOG in the FOIA suit.

GGNRA is 0 for 2 in FOIA Lawsuits

This is the second FOIA lawsuit Chris and Navi have won against the GGNRA. In 2017, the GGNRA turned over tens of thousands of documents related to its proposed Dog Management Plan that would have significantly reduced where you could walk with your dog. We published those documents on WoofieLeaks.com five days before the plan was set to take effect. As a result of the WoofieLeaks revelations — use of private emails to conduct official business, possibly prohibited grassroots lobbying, and collusion between dog opponents and agency staff — the GGNRA was ultimately forced to withdraw the Dog Management Plan.

Superintendent’s Compendium Attempted to Close Trails, Impound Off-leash Dogs

In this most recent FOIA case, documents produced reveal how the GGNRA attempted to use the 2019 Superintendent’s Compendium — a process for routine, minor and non controversial administrative changes — to enact measures that were identical to those in the ill-fated Dog Management Plan instead of going through a public notice and comment process required by federal law for changes in dog walking access.

For example:

This partially unredacted draft of the 2019 Superintendent’s Compendium was handed over by the GGNRA as part the FOIA lawsuit. (See the full copy below.)

  • Unmanaged Dogs: the Compendium’s definition of “Unmanaged Dogs” was so broad that nearly any and every dog behavior could be interpreted as “unmanaged,” e.g., dogs chasing each other, a common play behavior. Even more concerning was the GGNRA’s contention that unmanaged dogs could be impounded and then turned over to local animal control agencies, without requiring any attempt to identify the owner. The GGNRA knew that some shelters euthanize dogs that are unclaimed after 72 hours.

    • The GGNRA’s awareness that euthanasia could result from the proposed change in the definition of unmanaged dog is clear in a draft version of the Compendium that the public never saw. (This definition was stopped.)

  • Voice Control: the Compendium’s definition of “Voice Control” added an immediate recall test that was not well defined and could provide a tool for GGNRA officials to harass owners of well-behaved dogs that were not misbehaving in any way. This definition said dog owners must demonstrate immediate recall ability when requested by “authorized personnel” and dogs that failed the test could be considered running-at-large and subject to being impounded. (Note that this runs counter to the 1979 Pet Policy that governs off-leash dog walking in the GGNRA in San Francisco and Marin.)

    • FOIA documents revealed that Michael Savidge, Director, Strategic Planning & Partnerships for GGNRA, proceeded with this definition despite being advised for more than a year by an “expert consultant,” Dr. Alexandra Horowitz, a well known dog behaviorist at Barnard College, that it was “impracticable.” (This definition was stopped.)

  • Milagra Ridge & Rancho Corral de Tierra: GGNRA tried using the Compendium to ban people with dogs from the Overlook Trail at Milagra Ridge in Pacifica and by imposing a limit of three dogs at Rancho Corral de Tierra in Montara. These changes to dog-walking access were shown only in Exhibit maps that were included as part of the Compendium.

    • The access changes were not mentioned in the 2019 Compendium text or in a Table of Changes, which the GGNRA said it had produced specifically to show and compare all changes in the Compendium “as an effort to be very transparent.” (Both changes were stopped.)

Lack of Transparency

The changes to dog walking access in the Compendium Exhibit maps raised serious questions about transparency and oversight. Why were the changes made in the Exhibit maps not documented anywhere else? Who directed the changes?

Unfortunately, the GGNRA has been less than fully transparent about how the Exhibit maps were produced:

  • As part of our FOIA lawsuit, the GGNRA provided different iterations of maps but refused to hand over instructions and meeting notes given to the team that produced the maps.

  • They used a nonsensical excuse that the proposed change at Milagra Ridge was made as a technical correction from the 2017 Compendium map, despite the fact that Pet Management maps did not even exist in the previous Compendium. There is no such limit of three dogs at Rancho Corral de Tierra or on GGNRA land anywhere in San Mateo County, where dogs are allowed on leash on trails.

  • When we first raised our concerns about the dog access policy changes found only in the Exhibit maps, Michael Savidge, Director, Strategic Planning & Partnerships for GGNRA, told us not to worry because the Compendium maps were intended only for law enforcement use and different maps would be created for the public. (Since when does giving law enforcement incorrect maps instill confidence in anyone?) But his ham-fisted excuse contradicted a stated goal of the Compendium's “updated maps to assist visitors in planning park visits with their pets.”

  • Michael Savidge also told us that he had virtually no involvement in developing the Compendium which he said was a function of GGNRA law enforcement. Yet his name appears on every internal agency record, handed over in the FOIA lawsuit, directing the changes to dog walking policy and the development of the pet management Exhibit maps. He directly coordinated this activity with the National Park Service Solicitor, GGNRA law enforcement, GGNRA Chief of Natural Resources, GGNRA GIS specialists who produced the maps, and held briefings about the Compendium for GGNRA Superintendent Laura Joss.

Email from National Park Service Pacific West Regional Director to GGRNA Superintendent Laura Joss. The email references questions from Todd Willens, U.S. Dept. of Interior chief of staff.

NPS and DOI Blindsided

And speaking about lack of oversight. A rather embarrassing email that was unredacted as part of this FOIA lawsuit revealed that the National Park Service Pacific West Regional Director and the Department of the Interior were blindsided, like we were, by the dog walking restrictions in the Compendium. They questioned if GGNRA Superintendent Laura Joss had anticipated such a broad and visceral negative reaction and asked whether she had a plan to address the fall out.

Curiously, the GGNRA did not provide us with Superintendent’s Joss’s response to her bosses. They also did not provide a single internal agency email from Superintendent Joss related to the compendium in the FOIA documents produced, which is odd since it’s called the Superintendent’s Compendium.

GGNRA’s Never-Ending Quest to Stop Dog Walking

This dog monitoring program involved multiple NPS offices and Oregon State University. This plan continued to be developed after NPS suspended the Dog Management Plan and began investigating GGNRA for unlawful use of private email for agency business on January 10, 2017.

Equally troubling are FOIA records that show the GGNRA never stopped trying to restrict dog walking despite a directive that all staff were “not to conduct any planning or take project development actions regarding the proposed Dog Management Plan” when it was suspended by the National Park Service in early January 2017 after the WoofieLeaks revelations.

Documents provided as a result of our recent FOIA lawsuit showed that, despite a “hold and stand down” order by the then-acting Deputy Superintendent, Michael Savidge, GGNRA’s Director of Strategic Planning, continued to develop a component of the Dog Management Plan — a $344,000 dog monitoring program — through a cooperative agreement between the National Park Service and Oregon State University as of April 17, 2017, four months after all GGNRA staff were told to stop work. It is not clear if this program was ever actually implemented.

Community Opposition Rises Against Restricting Dog Walking

We are grateful that hundreds of people in the dog community quickly mobilized when the draft 2019 Superintendent’s Compendium was originally released August 30, 2019 by contacting the GGNRA and expressing opposition to the dog restrictions.

Our Congressional Representatives also raised concerns, especially Congresswoman Jackie Speier who met directly with the GGNRA superintendent.

In the final version of the Superintendent's Compendium released in July 2020, the GGNRA dropped nearly all of the dog walking restrictions to which we had objected and following the public outcry and pending legal action.

We had also filed a second lawsuit at the same time as the FOIA complaint that alleged the GGNRA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by using the Compendium to make changes to dog walking recreation. This lawsuit was withdrawn after the GGNRA removed the dog walking restrictions from the final Superintendent’s Compendium.

However, the fact we had to, once again, resort to legal action to protect recreational dog walking is a reminder we must never let our guard down because the GGNRA’s anti-dog walking crusade seems never-ending.

We are deeply appreciative of our attorneys Chris Carr, Navi Dhillon and the entire team at Paul Hastings LLP. for their expert work in helping us keep recreational dog walking access in the GGNRA.

We are grateful that so many people who regularly use the GGNRA for recreation called out the GGNRA’s underhanded and unlawful use of the compendium to enact dog walking restrictions and make significant policy changes.

Thank you everyone!

Save Our Recreation

Coastside DOG of San Mateo County

Marin County DOG

SFDOG



Resources:

 
Dogged Editor