For the last 14 years, the National Park Service has led an effort to restrict dogs’ recreation opportunities in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although the changes in rules do not exclusively deal with off-leash recreation, much of the focus has been on the reduction in opportunity for off-leash recreation in these public lands. In contrast to the unique off-leash opportunities in the GGNRA, the National Park Service generally restricts dogs to the inside of vehicles, or leashed in campgrounds, roads, parking lots or other developed areas (National Park Service 2016a). The GGNRA includes the redwoods of Muir Woods, the former federal prison of Alcatraz Island and many other natural and cultural national treasures including Crissy Field along the San Francisco Bay. The estimated 14.5 million annual visitors also make the GGNRA the most visited unit of the 413 units (e.g. national parks, battlefields, rivers, recreation areas, preserves) managed by the National Park Service in the USA and its territories (Industrial Economics Inc. 2016). Visitors to the GGNRA include international tourists, hang gliders, people on horseback, picnickers and 0.9 to 1.3 million annual visits by private parties walking dogs in the federal lands (Industrial Economics Inc. 2016).
The controversy over proposed restrictions to current off-leash recreation in the GGNRA is an example of the conflict between people that want to maintain public space free of off-leash dogs and those that feel that regulators must consider the recreation needs of domestic dogs and the people that enjoy recreating with canine companions. This is not the first analysis of controversies surrounding off-leash dog recreation in public space (e.g. Bowes et al. 2015; Matisoff and Noonan 2012; Sterl, Brandenburg and Arnberger 2008) and will likely not be the last considering the shifting role of domestic dogs in many modern societies (Olson and Hulser 2003). However, the controversy over off-leash recreation rights in the GGNRA is a particularly poignant instance of this debate because of the duration of the controversy and the vociferousness of the debate between the local community and the national agency managing the public land. This chapter contextualises the controversy and then uses media reports and scholarly research to illustrate the major arguments for and against the proposed restrictions to off-leash recreation in public space.
The GGNRA was created in 1972 as part of the Parks for People movement (Camhi 2014). A set of guidelines for dogs and other pets was developed in 1979, but apparently was not actively enforced (Camhi 2014). After an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate these guidelines with local interests (Lyman 2013), the National Park Service attempted to ban all off-leash recreation in 2001 (King 2013). However, a judge decided that such a ban could not occur before additional opportunities for public input were provided. In 2002, the National Park Service announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and provided a 90-day comment period (National Park Service 2016b). In 2006, a negotiated rulemaking committee was formed to gather additional public input and develop a set of recommendations (National Park Service 2016b). The initial versions of a draught plan and environmental impact study were released at the start of 2011 (King 2013; Lyman 2013). Written comments and statements made at public hearings and rallies emphatically conveyed that many dog owners perceived the restrictions as unfairly limiting their recreation, while others, including environmental groups, wanted additional restrictions (Lyman 2013). At protests, politicians, such as the elected national official representing the San Francisco Bay Area, Representative Speier, promised to “unleash the forces of Washington against efforts to ban unleashed dogs from most of the Bay Area’s string of federal parkland” (Lochhead 2015). The National Park Service released the Final Environmental Impact Statement on December 8, 2016 and explained that the rule would start being enforced after a period of education (National Park Service 2016 and 2016). The final rules have been characterised as a 90 percent reduction of space available for dog recreation (Stephens 2016).
Even though the National Park Service attempted to finalise the process in 2016, the process has been further delayed in response to requests by national political officials to allow review of National Park Service emails and other internal documentation released as part of a Freedom of Information Act. Representatives of dog activist organisations charged that the initial review of the materials suggest that the documents provide proof of anti-dog bias and misconduct by the National Park Service (Pershan 2017). A national elected official supporting the maintenance or expansion of dog recreation opportunities, Representative Speier, also requested the Inspector General of the federal department overseeing the National Park Service, the Department of Interior, to investigate the “improper and potentially illegal” actions taken by the National Park Service (National Parks Traveler 2017).
One of the reasons that this process has taken so long is the strong emotions involved. A GGNRA spokesperson stated, “Dog conflicts are among the toughest to deal with. Probably because of the passion of the constituency” (Lyman 2013). This is not the first off-leash dog issue that has proven to be challenging in San Francisco. In the process leading up to the adoption of new off-leash rules in San Francisco city parks, a park advocate commented on the process. “You would not believe the rancor that would go on at those meetings…. People would boo or hiss at speakers. Everyone was so politicized” (King 2013).
One challenge is that the National Park Service and dog advocates have different perspectives on the process. The National Park Service claimed that the dog management plan has been “subject to one of the most exhaustive outreach processes in the history of the National Park Service” (Kinney 2014). However, advocates for dog recreation claimed that the GGNRA was not following a democratic process, not being reasonable or simply acting arbitrarily (Bajko 2015; Stephens 2014). The elected national politician, Representative Speier, stated “This is not [the National Park Service’s] fiefdom … They are sticking their feet in concrete, saying ‘This is the way it is.’ That’s not the way this country is run” (Lochhead 2015). Similarly, dog advocates voiced doubts about the authenticity of the public input process. “The revised plan released last fall is essentially the same as the earlier plan, with only minor changes. The GGNRA ignored the substantive criticisms” (Stephens 2014).
Other than just being ignored, dog advocates claimed that the current regulation is the first step to a complete ban on dogs (Lochhead 2015). Furthermore, advocates claimed that banning off-leash regulation in the GGNRA would be “a precedent setting judgment, it can (and will) be used against off-leash activity [in] other areas throughout the country” (Kawczynska 2016). Statements from the National Park Service that “non-compliance may lead to tightening of restrictions” likely support this fear (Brooks 2011). In contrast, former Park Superintendent, Frank Dean, stated “We aren’t banning dogs. We are creating a special regulation to allow dogs off-leash” (Kwong 2014). During this long period of contention, many reports have publicised perspectives on both sides of the issue.
Similar to Toohey and Rock’s (2015) article, this study reviewed media discourse to understand the conflict over dogs’ recreational access to public space. In order to further identify what the arguments were on both sides of dog recreation in this unit managed by the National Park Service, newspaper articles and other online sources of popular media and journal articles were identified, reviewed, coded by argument type and collated. The internet and local news sources were searched using the search terms, “dogs” and “parks”, “Golden Gate National Recreation Area”, or “GGNRA”. Moreover, for half of 2015 and all of 2016, the first author reviewed articles from daily Google news alerts using the terms “dogs” and “park”. Scholarly sources were identified initially through Google Scholar using the terms “dog” or “dogs” and “park” or “public lands”. Further searches of EBSCO and other databases were conducted to search for potentially relevant sources cited in previously identified scholarly articles and articles that had cited relevant research.
The search yielded 36 popular media articles and five government sources that directly addressed the GGNRA off-leash controversy. An additional 36 popular media sources focussed on other San Francisco Bay area dog issues, and 93 peer-reviewed journal articles addressing issues related to dogs were reviewed for this study. Each popular and scholarly source was initially outlined with a focus on the different aspects of the arguments made for and against restricting on- and off-leash dog recreation. A set of emergent codes about the different arguments made by both sides were developed by reading and re-reading the article outlines. The original articles were then reviewed to further develop the outlines based on the emergent codes. Subsequently, the codes were grouped thematically based on the National Park Service’s stated four goals for the policy change. The coding of the article outlines was further developed based on this thematic coding. The goal of the chapter is to provide a rich description of the positions rather than calculating the frequency of each argument in the media. Therefore, when the final outline used to develop this article was constructed using the themes and associated codes, the focus was to include data that represented the diversity of perspectives in the popular media and associated scholarly research.
The National Park Service offered four primary goals for the proposed restrictions to canine recreation in the GGNRA: provide a variety of user experiences, reduce user conflict, promote visitor and employee safety and promote preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources (National Park Service 2016b). Arguments held by both sides were organised based on these goals.
The former general superintendent of the GGNRA, Christine Lehnertz, described the intent behind the change in dog recreation rules, “We’re trying to be pro-dog, but have a balanced approach” (Colliver 2016). The challenge is finding a balance between multiple parties wanting different, and sometimes conflicting, recreation experiences. There is a related set of questions pertaining to what is the intent of the public land designation and how the perspectives of the local population should be considered versus the directives of the national agency managing the area.
Some have claimed the new regulations are necessary to provide experiences to multiple groups of users and avoid conflicts such as, “unregulated dogs are jumping on (picnickers) and eating their food” (Lochhead 2015) and hang gliders, cyclists and joggers being harassed by off-leash dogs (Lochhead 2015). A San Francisco elected official characterised the issue, “(t)here has to be this balance, and we have to just not look at the happiness of dogs and dog owners” (Green 2016).
Dog advocates posit that the attempts to reduce conflict are at the expense of reducing dog recreation opportunities which is based on the experience of the National Park Service managing rural or wilderness parks, like Yellowstone or Yosemite, rather than the GGNRA which is a natural area adjacent to a major metropolitan area (Jones 2014; Lochhead 2015; Michels 2016; Rubenstein 2016). A San Francisco elected official stated, “The GGNRA properties are not backwoods national parks. These are urban national park areas that San Francisco residents have relied on for decades to walk their dogs and for other recreations” (Bajko 2015). This argument by dog activists implies that the GGNRA should have different rules to accommodate the many urban residents adjacent to the park lands.
Secondly, dog advocates argue that the GGNRA’s designation as a National Recreation Area and not a National Park means that recreation opportunities, such as dog walking, should be maximised (Camhi 2014; Lochhead 2015; Stephens 2016).
From its inception in 1972, (the National Park Service) has been charged with balancing habitat protection with recreational activities that predated (the) creation (of the GGNRA): ‘To provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space.’ Foremost among those activities was (and is) off-leash dog-walking.
(Kawczynska 2016)
This is an important argument because dog activists suggest that recreation opportunities for domestic dogs should differ by the area’s designation, even though the National Park Service argues that all units, regardless of their designation, need to be managed based on the agency’s primary goal of conservation.
The National Park Service rarely directly addresses these arguments except to argue that the GGNRA will continue to have the most dog-friendly policy of any area managed by the organisation (Michels 2016). Moreover, it must abide by national standards of management (Meyer and Shepard 2015; Stupi 2015), which requires that conservation must be favoured if recreation and conservation conflict (Industrial Economics Inc. 2016).
Recreation for whom? The clash between local urban users wanting to recreate with their dogs and the mandate of a national park system is not unique to this case (Sterl, Brandenberg and Arnberger 2008). On the one side, the National Park System posits it needs to not just serve the needs of locals, but all current and future Americans (Brooks 2011).
The NPS has a responsibility to provide these places for all Americans, not just for the local communities…. We are a part of a national system that I can’t manage Yellowstone just for the people who live in Cody, nor can we manage Golden Gate just for the people who live in San Francisco.
(Jonathan Jarvis, National Park Service Director; Stupi 2015)
In contrast to the National Park Service position, dog advocates charge that the National Park Service is not adequately valuing input from locals (Stupi 2015). After a San Francisco resolution was passed against the proposed restrictions, an elected public official asked, “What does it take for the National Park Service to actually listen to the elected officials of the 2 million residents of these three counties?” (Green 2016).
Dog advocacy organisations often take a narrower view of whose interests are not being considered. The leader of a dog advocacy organisation stated, “The GGNRA is pushing ahead with a plan it wants, regardless of what we, who use the recreation area, want or need” (Stephens 2014). Rather than listening to locals that want to recreate with their dogs, dog advocacy organisations claimed the “Sierra Club and Audubon Society and prominent donors held greater sway than national users they represent” (Kawczynska 2016).
Part of the counter-argument to the position that the GGNRA needs to be managed for a larger group of users is that, given its peri-urban location, the dog-centric values of San Francisco need to be accounted for (Stupi 2011; Codd 2015). A San Francisco elected official summarised this tension, “The National Park Service is trying to import its philosophy, which is pretty oppositional to dog access, and import that into our urban recreation (areas)” (Green 2016).
San Francisco has been described as being at the front of a social movement supporting the rights of domestic dogs (Davidson 2006; Della Cava 2015; Mason 2008). The Bay Area had the first no-kill animal shelter in the USA (Mason 2008), the first official off-leash dog park and continues to have some of the best dog parks in the nation (Bleiberg 2015; Codd 2015). Dogs are part of local politics (May 2007) and dog owners are legally “pet guardians” (Nolen 2003). It is often claimed that there are more dogs than children in San Francisco (e.g. Buchanan 2003; Lyman 2013; May 2007), which may be associated with an international trend to relate to dogs as family members rather than as more socially distant owned animals (e.g. Bowes et al. 2015; Fox 2006; Franklin 2006; O’Farrell 1997).
The National Park Service has stated that dogs are associated with the majority of the incidents of conflict reported to the National Park Service in the GGNRA (Jones 2014); an average of 300 per year (Johnson 2016). Conflicts include minor negative impacts on others’ recreation experiences as well as violence; such as dogs biting people, horses and other dogs (Lyman 2013; Mar and Meyer 2016).
The head of the National Parks Conservation described the issue as “wildlife enthusiasts trying to look at birds and seeing roving dogs harassing them … people on horses being bitten and attacked” (Lochhead 2015). In other cases the conflict is more subtle, such as a desire by some folks to not have to associate with dogs in public spaces (Rubenstein 2016).
Having a dog bounding along with you on the trail can be one of the most rewarding moments possible in the outdoors. Unless it’s not your dog. In that case – for someone afraid of dogs – that moment can become a nightmare (Stienstra 2016).
International visitors, families with small children and people with disabilities are all groups that have been identified as having members that would like to recreate in the GGNRA without the threat of off-leash dogs (Stupi 2011; Palmer 2015; Rubenstein 2016). A review of dog walking studies found that women, older adults and ethnic minorities were the most likely to identify other people’s dogs as impediments to their own physical activity (Toohey and Rock 2011). In this and other ways, dogs may have an asymmetrical impact on the recreational experience of other users (Graham, Glover and Grimwood 2015), although increasing leash requirements may decrease interaction of dogs with other dogs and humans (Westgarth et al. 2010).
Is off-leash recreation essential for the health of dogs? A key part of the argument for off-leash recreation is that it is necessary to keep dogs healthy, mentally stimulated and socialised (Burns 2006). “Neither (enclosed dog runs nor on-leash walks) could fully provide the physical and mental stimulation he needs to remain a healthy dog” (Stupi 2011). In contrast, some dogs may not benefit from large off-leash recreation areas due to disability, size or an inability to positively interact with other dogs and people.
Off-leash dog recreation areas may negatively impact dogs’ health due to the transmission of disease. A primary method of potential disease transmission is dog faeces. Increasing the use of leashes may increase the recovery of dog droppings. Previous studies have found that dog owners that have their dogs on-leash are more likely to pick up their dog’s faeces compared to owners that did not have the dog on leash when it defecated (Wells 2006; Westgarth et al. 2010). A Canadian study on parasites in dogs parks concluded, “reducing the burden of dog faeces in parks could have a positive health impact for dogs and humans by reducing infection risk, but cleaner parks may also offer an indirect health benefit by providing greater incentive to engage in physical and social activity” (Smith et al. 2014, 9).
A critical argument against the regulation changes is that it amounts to barring a group of current users from recreating on public land. “For many of us, especially women and seniors, off-leash recreation with our dogs is our only form of exercise. We don’t kayak, bike, run or cross-train” (Kawczynska 2016).
Beyond the opportunity to recreate, dog advocates have also charged that the new regulations will have deleterious impacts on their health. The head of a dog advocacy organisation claimed, “I also am a healthier and saner(!) person because of the availability to enjoy these areas with my dog” (Stupi 2011).
This is the claim with the greatest amount of related research; however, the empirical research on the health impacts of pets is inconclusive (Allen 2003; Bauman Russell, Furber and Dobson 2000; Cline 2010; Evenson et al. 2016; Herzog 2011; Koivusilta and Ojanlatva 2006; O’Farrell 1997; Serpell 1991; Toohey and Rock 2011). Wells’s (2007, 2009) review of research on domestic dogs and human health found that “dogs can have prophylactic and therapeutic value for people”, but that they also “pose an enormous risk to human health” (2007, 151), and the current research is limited by a lack of longitudinal designs and standardised measures.
Sometimes the health of both dogs and their human companions can be threatened due to off-leash recreation. Some dog owners claim that “there’s never any problems” at area parks (Rubenstein 2016); however, an observational study of dogs in Boulder, Colorado found that about one-fifth of interactions between dogs were aggressive (Bekoff and Meaney 1997) and dogs have been known to kill one another in off-leash parks (CTV News Windsor 2016). Fights between dogs can also promote conflicts between people. In an incident in a San Francisco park, two men who were asked to put their dogs on leash “threatened to stab and shoot the other owners and kick the other dogs” (NextDoor.com 2016). In a different San Francisco dog park, a fight broke out between dog guardians after their dogs got into a tussle (Pratt 2016).
Sometimes it is the dogs that are the victims of violent off-leash encounters with people. In a San Francisco park, a dog chasing a jogger ended in the death of the dog (CBS San Francisco 2015). The man, who had previously been bitten by a dog when jogging, claimed that he shoved, but the dog guardian countered he kicked, the dog away from him. This incident could have been avoided if the dog was truly under voice control, something that is required when dogs are off-leash, but some dog guardians charge is often not the case (Stupi 2011). On the other side of the San Francisco Bay in Oakland, a man killed two dogs and wounded their human companion after the victim’s off-leash dogs approached the assailant’s dog (Fox News 2016).
In opposition to the discourse that dogs are the sources of conflict, is the argument noted in previous studies (e.g. Holmberg 2013; Knight and Edwards 2008; Tissot 2011; Urbanik and Morgan 2013) that off-leash dogs increase park security by discouraging undesirable activity. “With the off-leash dogs, the risk of violence is virtually non-existent. It would take a very stupid mugger to attempt anything there. In my daily visits since retiring several years ago, I have never witnessed any problems like that” (Stupi 2011). An Australian study found that dog owners were significantly more likely to feel safe while walking and at home than non-dog owners (Wood et al. 2007). A Canadian study found that female dog walkers were most likely to express that the presence of dogs increased their perceived safety in a wooded park (Graham, Glover and Grimwood 2015).
Another argument in favour of the notion that off-leash recreation promotes safety is that off-leash dogs are less dangerous than on-leash dogs. The leader of a dog advocacy group claimed, “dogs are a lot more aggressive on leash than they are off leash” (Camhi 2014). A related strain of this argument is that leashes limit dogs’ ability to move based on their owner’s mobility, and if dogs do not get their energy out through off-leash recreation then they will be more problematic. “A well-exercised dog is a well-behaved dog. It’s better for everybody” (Camhi 2014).
Dog advocates reframe the issue of conflict as the National Park Service creating conflict by further crowding off-leash recreation into smaller spaces (e.g. Camhi 2014; Colliver 2016; Kwong 2014; Michels 2016; Stephens 2014). Dog advocacy groups claim that the new rules will “lead to the largest loss of public access to the GGNRA since its inception” (Rubenstein 2016). The National Park Service states that the new rules are necessary due to an increase in the number of people and dogs recreating in the GGNRA (Bay City News 2015; Jones 2014). The number of GGNRA users has doubled in the last 20 years (Kwong 2014). The GGNRA is currently the most visited of the more than 400 units managed by the National Park Service in the USA and territories (Jones 2014; Lochhead 2015) with an estimated 14.5 million annual visitors between 2012 and 2014 (Industrial Economics Inc. 2016).
Part of this growth is from the San Francisco Bay Area population. From 1970 (just before the 1972 creation of the GGNRA) to 2016, the population of the San Francisco Bay Area increased 65 percent from 4.6 million to 7.7 million (Bay Area Census 2016; U.S. Census Bureau 2016). The relative density of residents in San Francisco and the high cost of residential space (Wallace 2016) equates to a dearth of private outdoor spaces (e.g. backyards) for off-leash recreation (Stephens 2014). Previous studies have linked a lack of private outdoor space with more reliance on public outdoor space for dog recreation (e.g. Gómez 2013).
Some dog guardians suggest that poor dog behaviour is, at least partially, the fault of the National Park Service for failing to guide guardians and properly enforce the rules (Johnson 2016; Stephens 2014).
I do see many owners who allow dogs on vegetation. I think some education and perhaps a few citations would rein this in quickly…. Many dog owners and dog walkers need some stern guidance on appropriate behavior, (picking up feces, keeping dogs within sight and under voice control, abiding by park restrictions) but it is a relationship that can work.
(Stupi 2011)
While the previous quote discussed “many owners”, some dog activists characterise the situation as the National Park Service permitting poor behaviour by a few rogue dogs and people. This argument then suggests that the behaviour of this limited element is used to justify collective punishment for all dogs. “Responsible dog owners should not be punished…. If a few people litter on the beach, do they talk about banning people from the beach?” (Jones 2014).
The National Park Service partially disputes the claim that the existing rules just need to be better enforced by arguing that the new policy offers greater clarity, which will make it easier to enforce the rules. A former GGNRA general superintendent stated, “The purpose of this action is to provide a clear, enforceable policy to determine the manner and extent of dog use in appropriate areas of the park” (Brooks 2011).
One of the challenges to effectively managing the dog regulations may be cost. The National Park Service estimated that it would cost about US$2.5 million for the informational materials and personnel needed to implement the new rules (Prado 2016). Without this additional funding, the National Park Service might be forced to follow the lead of other parks in the area, such as the East Bay Regional Park District, that decided to not enforce leash regulations due to the relative cost (Esper 2016).
Enforcement of the dog recreation related rules are much easier if the majority of people understand the rules and voluntarily comply. While some online resources inform guardians about the rules that they should follow e.g. “(d)ogs must be on a leash in the Bank Swallow habitat areas” (Bring Fido 2016); other sites normalise rule-breaking “(t)he rules are that dogs must be on-leash between from Sloat Blvd. and Stairwell 21…. Do people always follow this rule? Nope!” (Pershan 2015). Some dog walking information sites list an area as an off-leash recreation area even though it states that it is “not an official ‘off-leash’ area” (Bring Fido 2016). Given previous findings that social norms promote an obligation to abide by leash regulations (Williams et al. 2009), online resources and other resources supporting a norm of rule-breaking may make it more challenging to enforce leash laws.
As has been found in other studies (Bowes et al. 2015; Degeling and Rock 2012; Holmberg 2013), some owners disregard the right of law enforcement to ticket them for illegal off-leash recreation and argue it is an opportunity for civil disobedience. When the National Park Service attempted to enforce leash laws on part of the GGNRA, Crissy Fields, it led to a public meeting where 1 500 people showed up; people actively fought the tickets in the court and had the citations dismissed (Mason 2008). A man walking a dog in a different part of the GGNRA, Fort Funston, stated, “If they write me a ticket, I’m just going to tear it up…. Topper and I have some rights, too, don’t we?” (Rubenstein 2016).
This lack of recognition of the rights of law enforcements to enforce leash regulations has led to violence. In a well-publicised incident in the GGNRA, a ranger requesting a man to leash his dogs escalated into a conflict ending with the man being stunned by the officer (Ho 2013). The man who was electrocuted sued the National Park Service, was awarded US$50,000, and the ranger was assigned to a park in a different state (Emslie 2014; Williams 2014).
The rebellion against leash law enforcement is also an issue in area parks. An article noted numerous off-leash dogs at one San Francisco park, even though there were signs banning off-leash recreation at each of the park’s five entrances (King 2013). At a different San Francisco park, an observer described the situation when a ranger notified people about the leash law, “We had a park ranger try to advise people of leash rule; he said, ‘I’ve never taken more abuse from anyone on anything I’ve done in the park system’ ” (Koeppel 2015).
Similar to what has been found in previous studies (Bowes et al. 2015), part of the resistance to leash enforcement may be that some dog guardians see the leash rules as a secondary offence that should only be enforced if there is some larger issue with the dog, such as if the dog harms other people or animals. After receiving a ticket for over US$100, a San Francisco resident stated, “I think it’s ridiculous for well-behaved dogs to get ticketed” (Winegarner 2012).
Meyer and Shepard (2015) claimed that the GGNRA has more endangered species than two of the most iconic national parks in the area, Yosemite and Sequoia. The head of the local Audubon society expressed concern that “in this process [of debating changes to dog recreation access], you haven’t seen the same level of compassion extended to wildlife as to dogs…. Everyone who cares about animals should understand that wildlife needs protection, too” (Jones 2014).
The impact of dogs on birds is a frequently mentioned concern. The Western Snowy Plover is one species that is often touted as needing additional protection. Signs warn recreationists about the tiny endangered birds that overwinter in the area. There is estimated to only be about 2 100 individual birds in existence (Johnson 2016). The primary concern is that the birds often “waste valuable metabolic energy” to fly away from people and dogs rather than hunt for food or rest (Johnson 2016).
A study of a Southern California beach found that dogs were about four times as likely to disturb birds compared to humans alone (Lafferty 2001). “Dogs disturbed birds disproportionate to their numbers due to the tendency for some dogs to chase birds and the possibility that some birds, such as snowy plovers are more sensitive to dogs than humans” (Lafferty 2001, 1960). A study set in Australian woodlands determined that human’s walking without dogs had about half the negative impact on birds compared to humans walking with dogs (Banks and Bryant 2007). The presence of dogs led to a 35 percent reduction in bird diversity and 41 percent decrease in abundance (Banks and Bryant 2007). A study of an Australia coastal park concluded that “dogs exert a greater effect on shorebird abundance than people as they not only reduce the probability of birds occupying a planning unit, they also reduce the count of birds within a planning unit to a greater extent than people alone” (Stigner et al. 2016, 1210). These findings may be complicated by findings that dog walkers perceive the impact of dogs on wildlife as being significantly lower than people not walking with dogs (Sterl, Brandenberg and Arnberger 2008).
Although there have been negative interactions between dogs and other animals, including horses, the wild mammal that has received the most attention for interacting with dogs in the San Francisco Bay Area are coyotes. Authorities started receiving reports of coyotes in San Francisco in 2007 (Fox Television 2016). Most of the reported incidents between dogs and coyotes have been in the city parks (Fimrite 2015); however, given that the city is estimated to have more than 100 coyotes (Stienstra 2014), and that they will occupy the most marginal of natural spaces, it is likely that reports of interactions between dogs and coyotes in the GGNRA will increase in the future. Furthermore, a regional drought has forced coyotes to travel further for food and thus have more interactions with local residents and their pets (Fimrite 2015).
Beyond animals, there is also concern that dogs may negatively impact vegetation. Although most dogs and their people recreate in highly frequented regions, such as beaches, some people take their dogs to less travelled areas of the GGNRA, including beachside cliffs (Bay City News 2015). Moving off trails and beaches may increase the impact of dogs and their people on sensitive vegetation. In response to vegetation damage in a San Francisco park, a park supporter observed, “You can see large patches of the turf that are torn up and completely worn down to the ground where the dog owners stand around and throw their balls” (Koeppel 2015). Similarly, a different San Francisco park was closed down five months after it was renovated due to erosion caused by dogs and their guardians (Ho 2015).
There is push back against claims that dog walking, and, in particular, off-leash dog recreation, is actually impacting the environment. Dog advocacy organisations have claimed that “there is no scientific basis for this radical change” (Fimrite 2013) and the plan “proposes too many restrictions with too little analysis and factual basis” (Kwong 2014). This raises the question of what evidence is valid to support changes to the rules regulating dogs’ movement in the GGNRA. Is it enough to have studies in similar areas that show negative impacts associated with off-leash dog recreation or is it essential to have data of actual impact in the GGNRA? The leader of a dog advocacy organisation supports the latter argument when she states, “the agency lists many impacts from dogs that ‘could’ or ‘might’ happen, yet offer no specific evidence that any are occurring in the GGNRA – or ever have” (Stephens 2014).
The disagreement over proposed dog regulations at the GGNRA has lasted for 14 years and will likely continue into the future. The National Park Service claims that reduction in on- and off-leash dog recreation opportunities will support a variety of user experiences, reduce user conflict, promote visitor and employee safety and promote preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources. In contrast, dog advocates charge that the changes will displace many of the current dog walkers. They claim the process implicitly assumes rural guidelines to manage a natural area adjacent to a very dog-friendly city, off-leash recreation is necessary to keep all users healthy and safe, and that the current body of research is not strong enough to justify such drastic changes.
The media reports are often limited and fail to address fundamental aspects of the positions held by both sides. For example, a key point of difference is what value should be placed on the needs of domestic dogs when regulating public space (Carr 2015a; Wolch 2002). Firstly, should dogs be considered beings who have leisure rights that should be acknowledged and respected by the government or are they objects that merely facilitate or detract from the experience of humans (Carr 2015b; Fox 2006; Hultsman 2015)? Assuming that dogs do have justifiable needs, then who has the privilege of defining what those rights should be? Given the inability of dogs to speak for themselves, it has most often been the advocates for increased dog recreation opportunity that have defined what the needs of dogs are, but it is unclear at times whether the people are voicing the dogs’ needs or claiming the desire for something, such as space for off-leash recreation, based on their own desire to not have to be personally active or travel further to a different space. Secondly, just as the norms of dogs accessing private spaces have often changed (Franklin 2006), should a similar shift be carried out on public land? If such a shift does occur, is it enough to allow dogs access if they are on a leash, but does the emancipation of dogs in public spaces require off-leash access? Thirdly, when there are asymmetrical conflicts between users, whose rights are privileged and how should this be enforced to minimise public space that is “accessible to everybody in principle but not necessarily in practice” (Tissot 2011, 268). Fourthly, if dogs act poorly, should they be allowed to “act like a dog” or should they be treated as vermin and excluded from public space (Graham, Glover and Grimwood 2015; Holmberg 2013; Wolch, West and Gaines 1995)? To what extent should the needs and preferences of other human visitors be compromised to accommodate access for dogs on public lands? The format of popular media may obliquely reference some of these important issues, but rarely provides a direct analysis of these important issues.
Dogs are the domestic animal that are most likely to be brought out into shared public space; therefore, questions about whether dogs have rights to public space may promote larger questions about the trans-species sharing of urban public space (Degeling and Rock 2012). If the place of dogs, as nonhuman animals, is elevated to be deserving of dedicated public space, what implications does that have for wild animals, such as coyotes, raccoons and skunks (Wolch 2002)? What if the presence of one species in public outdoor spaces threatens the existence of another species (e.g. dogs chasing birds or coyotes eating dogs)?
The current debate has culminated in the restriction of the free movement of dogs in public space. Much of the debate between the parties is waged through popular media reports that often address just a few of the arguments with little analysis of the position. If more complete reviews, such as this one, can help both sides better understand the assumptions and implications of the positions held by parties on both sides of the issue, then perhaps future debates over public space may evolve to more fully acknowledge the views of all parties, including non-humans.
Allen, K. 2003. “Are Pets a Healthy Pleasure? The Influence of Pets on Blood Pressure.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12(6): 236–239.
Bajko, M. 2015. “Lesbian Named Chief of SF National Park.” The Bay Area Reporter, March 26. Accessed April 21, 2015. www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=newsandarticle=70468.
Banks, P., and J. Bryant. 2007. “Four-Legged Friend or Foe? Dog Walking Displaces Native Birds from Natural Areas.” Biology Letters 3(6): 611–613. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0374
Bauman, A., S. Russell, S. Furber, and A. Dobson. 2000. “The Epidemiology of Dog Walking: An Unmet Need for Human and Canine Health.” The Medical Journal of Australia 175(11–12): 632–634.
Bay Area Census. 2016. “San Francisco Bay Area population.” www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/counties.htm.
Bay City News. 2015. “Pet Owners Protest Plan That Could Prohibit off-Leash Dogs in Parts of Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” CBS SF Bay Area, March 4. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/04/pet-owners-protest-plan-that-could-prohibit-off-leash-dogs-in-parts-of-golden-gate-national-recreational-area/.
Bay City News. 2015. “2 Adults, Dog Rescued from Cliff at Fort Funston.” San Francisco Examiner, March 22. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/2-adults-dog-rescued-from-cliff-at-fort-funston/Content?oid=2924314.
Bekoff, M., and C. Meaney. 1997. “Interactions Among Dogs, People, and the Environment in Boulder, Colorado: A Case Study.” Anthrozoös 10(1): 23–31.
Bleiberg, L. 2015. “10 Best: Amazing Dog Parks Across the USA.” USA Today, March 27. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/10greatplaces/2015/03/27/dog-parks/70481392/.
Bowes, M., P. Keller, R. Rollins, and R. Gifford. 2015. “Parks, Dogs, and Beaches: Human-Wildlife Conflict and the Politics of Place.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by Neil Carr, 146–173. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bring Fido. 2016. Off-Leash Dog Parks in San Francisco, CA. August 20. www.bringfido.com/attraction/parks/city/san_francisco_ca_us/.
Brooks, J. 2011. “GGNRA Dog-Walking Proposal: View Maps and Public Hearing Schedule, Send a Comment.” KQED, January 14. Accessed April 22, 2015. ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/14/ggnra-dog-walking-plan-commence-commenting.
Brooks, J. 2011. “Wide Differences Between GGNRA, Dogwalkers on Leash Plan.” KQED, March 11. Accessed April 22, 2015. ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/03/03/ggnra-dog.
Buchanan, W. 2003. “S.F. to Put Some Teeth in Its Dog Leash Laws: Police to Start Issuing $27 Tickets to Scofflaws.” SF Gate, February 28. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-to-put-some-teeth-in-its-dog-leash-laws-2631572.php.
Burns, K. 2006. “Advising Clients About Dog Parks.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229(6): 902–902.
Camhi, T. 2014. “Why Some Bay Area Dogs Are Tied Up in Controversy.” KALW Local Public Radio, July 31. Accessed April 21, 2015. http://kalw.org/post/why-some-bay-area-dogs-are-tied-controversy.
Carr, N. 2015a. “Defining Domesticated Animals and Exploring Their Uses by and Relationships with Humans Within the Leisure Experience.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by Neil Carr, 1–16. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, N. 2015b. “The Greyhound: A Story of Fashion, Finances, and Animal Rights.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by Neil Carr, 109–126. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
CBS San Francisco. 2015. “Jogger Kicks, Kills Dog That Ran Up to Him on East Bay Trail.” March 25. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/jogger-reportedly-kicks-kills-dog-that-ran-up-to-him-on-east-bay-trail/.
Cline, K. 2010. “Psychological Effects of Dog Ownership: Role Strain, Role Enhancement, and Depression.” The Journal of Social Psychology 150(2): 117–131.
Codd, L. 2015. “San Francisco’s Duboce Park Has Gone to the Dogs.” KALW Local Public Radio, January 12. Accessed April 14, 2015. http://kalw.org/post/san-franciscos-duboce-park-has-gone-dogs.
Colliver, V. 2016. “San Mateo County Dog Lovers Howl at Federal Lands’ Off-Leash Plan.” SF Gate, March 22. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Mateo-County-dog-lovers-howl-at-federal-6975592.php.
CTV News Windsor. 2016. “Windsor Woman Speaks Out After Shih Tzu Killed in Dog Park.” September 27. http://windsor.ctvnews.ca/windsor-woman-speaks-out-after-shih-tzu-killed-in-dog-park-1.3091259.
Davidson, K. 2006. “San Francisco: A Doggy-Centric Day in the Park.” SF Gate, August 27. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-A-doggy-centric-day-in-the-park-2554379.php.
Degeling, C., and M. Rock. 2012. ‘It Was Not Just a Walking Experience’: Reflections on the Role of Care in Dog-Walking.” Health Promotion International 28(3): 397–406. doi:10.1093/heapro/das024.
Della Cava, M. 2015. “It’s Official: E-Commerces Is Going to the Dogs.” USA Today, March 20. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/03/20/its-official-e-commerce-is-going-to-the-dogs/.
Emslie, A. 2014. “Judge: Park Ranger’s Tasering of Dog Walker Was Unlawful.” KQED, October 12. Accessed April 22, 2015. ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/10/12/federal-judge-rules-park-rangers-taser-use-on-dog-walker-was-unlawful/.
Esper, D. 2016. “Albany: Suit Refiled Over Off-Leash Dogs at Beach.” Bay Area News, April 20. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29792508/albany-suit-refiled-over-off-leash-dogs-at.
Evenson, K., E. Shay, S. Williamson, and D. Cohen. 2016. “Use of Dog Parks and the Contribution to Physical Activity for Their Owners.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 87(2): 165–173.
Fimrite, P. 2013. “GGNRA Managers Unleash Dog-Walking Rules.” SF Gate, September 6. Accessed April 21, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/GGNRA-managers-unleash-dog-walking-rules-4793377.php.
Fimrite, P. 2015. “S.F. Neighborhood on Edge After Coyote Pack Moves in, Kills Cats.” SF Chronicle, September 17. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-neighborhood-on-edge-after-coyote-pack-moves-6512264.php.
Fox, R. 2006. “Animal Behaviours, Post-Human Lives: Everyday Negotiations of the Animal – Human Divide in Pet-Keeping.” Social and Cultural Geography 7(4): 525–537.
Fox News. 2016. “California Police Search for Suspect Accused of Stabbing 2 Dogs at Park.” July 18. www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/18/california-police-search-for-suspect-accused-stabbing-2-dogs-at-park.html.
Fox Television. 2016. “Coyotes in San Francisco Are Here to Stay: Dog Owners on Alert.” March 24. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.ktvu.com/news/113329590-story.
Franklin, A. 2006. “ ‘Be[a]ware of the Dog’: A Post-Humanist Approach to Housing.” Housing, Theory and Society 23(3): 137–156.
Gómez, E. 2013. “Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts, and Suggestions.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 31(4): 79–91.
Graham, T., T. Glover, and B. Grimwood. 2015. “The Potential of Place Meanings for Negotiating Differences Among Birdwatchers and Dog-Walkers at a Multiple-Use Urban Forest.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by Neil Carr, 127–145. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, E. 2016. “SF Supervisors Oppose Federal Off-Leash Rules at GGNRA.” SF Gate, March 15. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Supervisors-oppose-federal-off-leash-rules-at-6892296.php.
Herzog, H. 2011. “The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4): 236–239.
Ho, V. 2013. “Off-Leash Dog Runner Sues Over Tasing.” SF Gate, March 21. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Off-leash-dog-runner-sues-over-tasing-4374463.php.
Ho, V. 2015. “Chronical Watch: San Francisco Dog Park Hounded by Problems.” SF Gate, January 9. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Chronicle-Watch-San-Francisco-dog-park-hounded-6004934.php.
Holmberg, T. 2013. “Trans-Species Urban Politics Stories from a Beach.” Space and Culture 16(1): 28–42.
Hultsman, W. 2015. “Dogs and Companion/Performance Sport: Unique Social Worlds, Serious Leisure Enthusiasts, and Solid Human-Canine Partnerships.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by Neil Carr, 35–66. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Industrial Economics Inc. January 22, 2016. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule for Dog Management in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Industrial Economics Incorporated: Cambridge, MA.
Johnson, L. 2016. “Final Dog-Management Plan for GGNRA Has Owners Growling.” SF Gate, December 8. Accessed December 9, 2016. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Final-dog-plan-for-GGNRA-sure-not-to-please-10781839.php.
Johnson, L. 2016. “Threatened Snowy Plovers Spotted in Record Numbers on Ocean Beach.” San Francisco Chronicle, March 4. Accessed www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Threatened-snowy-plovers-spotted-in-record-6871428.php.
Jones, C. 2014. “Dog Owners Unleash Their Opinions About GGNRA Restrictions.” SF Gate, January 30. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.sfgate.com/pets/article/Dog-owners-unleash-their-opinions-about-GGNRA-5190871.php.
Kawczynska, C. 2016. “Off-Leash Recreation Is Being Threatened.” The Bark, May 19. http://thebark.com/content/leash-recreation-being-threatened.
King, J. 2013. “Holly Park symbolizes S.F. Dog Situation.” SF Gate, June 19. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/Holly-Park-symbolizes-S-F-dog-situation-4608693.php.
Kinney, A. 2014. “Off-Leash Dog Plan in GGNRA Decried by San Mateo County Dog Owners, Rep. Speier.” San Jose Mercury News, January 31. Accessed April 21, 2015. www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_25037935/speier-dog-owners-decry-ggnras-dog-policy-san.
Knight, S., and V. Edwards. 2008. “In the Company of Wolves: The Physical, Social, and Psychological Benefits of Dog Ownership.” Journal of Aging and Health 20(4): 437–455.
Koeppel, G. 2015. “New Master Plan for Washington Square to Be Discussed April 8th.” Hoodline, April 3. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://hoodline.com/2015/04/new-master-plan-for-washington-square-to-be-discussed-april-8th.
Koivusilta, L., and A. Ojanlatva. 2006. “To Have or Not to Have a Pet for Better Health?” PloS one 1(1): e109. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000109.
Kwong, J. 2014. “Some Residents Continue to Bark at Off-Leash Dog Restrictions.” San Francisco Examiner, January 31. Accessed April 21, 2015. www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/some-residents-continue-to-bark-at-off-leash-dog-restrictions/Content?oid=2692765.
Lafferty, K. 2001. “Birds at a Southern California Beach: Seasonality, Habitat Use and Disturbance by Human Activity.” Biodiversity and Conservation 10(11): 1949–1962.
Lochhead, C. 2015. “New U.S. Parkland Limits Feed Dog Lovers’ Outrage.” SF Gate, March 25. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Let-dogs-run-free-pooch-lovers-tell-Washington-6159080.php.
Lyman, R. 2013. “San Francisco Debates a Proposal to Limit Where Dogs Can Roam.” New York Times, September 24. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/us/san-francisco-debates-a-proposal-to-limit-where-dogs-can-roam.html?_r=2.
Mar, E., and A. Meyer. 2016. “Dog Owners Aren’t Only Ones to Consider.” San Francisco Examiner, April 12. Accessed December 9, 2016. www.sfexaminer.com/dog-owners-arent-ones-consider/.
Mason, M. 2008. “San Francisco, CA 94123: Where Dogs Have Their Day.” National Geographic, April 12. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0604/feature7/.
Matisoff, D., and D. Noonan. 2012. “Managing Contested Greenspace: Neighborhood Commons and the Rise of Dog Parks.” International Journal of the Commons 6(1): 28–51.
May, M. 2007. “S.F.’s Best Friend: Where Pooches Outnumber Kids, Impassioned, Doting Owners and Hounds Dressed to the Canines Treat All Days Like Dog Days.” SF Gate, June 17. Accessed April 15, 2015. www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-S-BEST-FRIEND-Where-pooches-outnumber-2555688.php.
Meyer, A., and W. Shepard. 2015. “Regulate Dogs on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Lands.” San Francisco Chronicle, November 8. www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Regulate-dogs-on-the-Golden-Gate-National-6618414.php.
Michels, S. 2016. “Critics Send Up a Howl Over Proposed GGNRA Rules.” KQUED News, February 25. Accessed June 3, 2016. ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/25/golden-gate-national-recreation-area-dog-rules.
National Park Service. 2016a. “Pets.” Yellowstone National Park. Accessed January 12, 2017. www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/pets.htm.
National Park Service. 2016b. “Dog Management.” Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California. Accessed January 8, 2016. www.nps.gov/goga/learn/management/dog-management.htm.
National Park Service. 2016. “GGNRA Dog Management: Final Environmental Impact Statement Released.” (email communication), December 8.
National Park Service. 2016. “Dog Management Planning Update-Fall 2016.” (email communication), November 15.
National Parks Traveler. 2017. “Congresswoman Calls for Investigation into Handling of Dog Regulations at Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” January 12. Accessed January 12, 2017. www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2017/01/congresswoman-calls-investigation-handling-dog-regulations-golden-gate-national-recreation.
NextDoor.com. 2016. “NextDoor” Accessed September 16, 2016. https://sfstateca.nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=32607436.
Nolen, R. 2003. “Pet Owners in San Francisco Become ‘Pet Guardians’.” JAVMA News, February 15. www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/030301d.aspx.
O’Farrell, V. 1997. “Owner Attitudes and Dog Behavior Problems.” Applied Animal Behavior Science 52(3–4): 205–213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01123-9.
Olson, R., and L. Hulser. 2003. “Petropolis: A Social History of Urban Animal Companions.” Visual Studies 18(2): 133–143. doi:10.1080/14725860310001632001.
Palmer, T. 2015. “Bay Area Dog Owners Fight Impending Off-Leash Laws for U.S. Parks.” NBC Bay Area, April 1. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dog-Owners-Try-to-Save-Fetch-in-San-Francisco-298229881.html.
Pershan, C. 2015. “The 11 Best Dog Parks in San Francisco.” sfist, January 15. http://sfist.com/2015/01/15/the_best_dog_parks_in_san_francisco.php.
Pershan, C. 2017. “National Park Service Places Controversial New Dog Management Rules on Hold.” January 10. Accessed January 12, 2017. http://sfist.com/2017/01/10/new_dog_rules_for_golden_gate_natio.php.
Prado, M. 2016. “Huffman: Keep Muir Beach Off-Leash Dog Area.” marinji.com, September 28. www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160928/NEWS/160929789.
Pratt, E. 2016. “Man Kicks Black Lab After Scuffle in San Francisco Park, Fellow Dog Owners Attempt to Restrain Him.” Inquisitr, September 3. www.inquisitr.com/3480487/man-kicks-black-lab-after-scuffle-in-san-francisco-park-fellow-dog-owners-attempt-to-restrain-him-before-he-assaults-other-dogs-video/.
Rubenstein, S. 2016. “Proposal Issued to Further Limit Dogs in GGNRA.” SF Gate, February 22. www.sfgate.com/news/article/Proposal-issued-to-further-limit-dogs-in-GGNRA-6848065.php.
Rubenstein, S. 2016. “Recreation Area’s Off-Leash Rules Bring Praise, Protest.” San Francisco Chronicle, February 23. www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Some-dog-lovers-have-bone-to-pick-with-new-6850093.php#photo-9446309.
Serpell, J. 1991. “Beneficial Effects of Pet Ownership on Some Aspects of Human Health and Behaviour.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84(12): 717–720.
Smith, A., C. Semeniuk, S. Kutz, and A. Massolo. 2014. “Dog-Walking Behaviors Affect Gastrointestinal Parasitism in Park-Attending Dogs.” Parasites and Vectors 7(1): 1–10.
Stephens, S. 2014. “Opinion: Off-Leash Areas Should Not Be Closed.” SF Gate, January 27. Accessed April 14, 2015. www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Off-leash-dog-areas-should-not-be-closed-5179985.php.
Stephens, S. 2016. “Stop Calling It ‘Golden Gate National Parks’.” San Francisco Examiner, March 27. Accessed December 8, 2016. www.sfexaminer.com/stop-calling-golden-gate-national-parks-2/.
Stephens, S. 2016. “The Reason So Many Hate Government.” San Francisco Examiner, December 18. Accessed January 12, 2017. www.sfexaminer.com/reason-many-hate-government/.
Sterl, P., C. Brandenburg, and A. Arnberger. 2008. “Visitors’ Awareness and Assessment of Recreation Disturbances of Wildlife in the Donau-Auen National Park.” Journal for Nature Conservation 16: 135–145.
Stienstra, T. 2014. “Coyotes Seemingly Thrive in San Francisco.” March 27. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.sfgate.com/outdoors/article/Coyotes-seemingly-thrive-in-San-Francisco-5045034.php.
Stienstra, T. 2016. “Dog-Friendly Parks Throw Pet Owners a Bone.” April 21. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.sfgate.com/outdoors/article/Dog-friendly-parks-throw-pet-owners-a-bone-7278318.php#item-44548.
Stigner, M., H. Beyer, C. Klein, and A. Fuller. 2016. “Reconciling Recreational Use and Conservation Values in a Coastal Protected Area.” Journal of Applied Ecology 53(4): 1206–1214. doi:10.1111/1365–2664.12662.
Stupi, A. 2011. “Bay Area Responds to GGNRA Dog-Leash Proposal.” KQED News, January 17. Accessed April 22, 2015. ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/17/bay-area-responds-to-ggnra-dog-leash-proposal.
Stupi, A. 2015. “Head of National Parks Responds to Criticisms of GGNRA Dog Management Plan.” KQED, March 27. Accessed April 15, 2015. ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/27/head-of-nationa-parks-responds-to-criticisms-of-ggnra-dog-management-plan/.
Tissot, S. 2011. “Of Dogs and Men: The Making of Spatial Boundaries in a Gentrifying Neighborhood.” City and Community 10(3): 265–284. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6040.2011.01377.x.
Toohey, A., and M. Rock. 2011. “Unleashing Their Potential: A Critical Realist Scoping Review of the Influence of Dogs on Physical Activity for Dog-Owners and Non-Owners.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition Physical Activity 8(1): 46.
Toohey, A., and M. Rock. 2015. “Newspaper Portrayals, Local Policies, and Dog-Supportive Public Space: Who’s Wagging Whom?” Anthrozoös 28(4): 549–567.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “California Population by Country.” www.census.gov/.
Urbanik, J., and M. Morgan. 2013. “A Tale of Tails: The Place of Dog parks in the Urban Imaginary.” Geoforum 44: 292–302.
Wallace, N. 2016. “What Is the True Cost of Living in San Francisco.” SmartAsset, August 15. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/what-is-the-cost-of-living-in-san-francisco.
Wells, D. 2006. “Factors Influencing Owners’ Reactions to Their Dogs’ Fouling.” Environment and Behavior 38(5): 707–714. doi:10.1177/0013916505284794.
Wells, D. 2007. “Domestic Dogs and Human Wealth: An Overview.” British Journal of Health Psychology 12(1): 145–156.
Wells, D. 2009. “The Effects of Animals on Human Health and Well-Being.” Journal of Social Issues 65(3): 523–543. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2009.01612.x.
Westgarth, C., R. Christley, G. Pinchbeck, R. Gaskell, S. Dawson, and J. Bradshaw. 2010. “Dog behavior on Walks and the Effect of Use of the Leash.” Applied Animal Behavior Science 125(1): 38–46.
Williams, K. 2014. “Judge Rules Against Park Ranger Who Used Stun Gun on Dog Walker.” SF Gate, October 10. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rules-against-park-ranger-who-used-stun-gun-5813401.php.
Williams, K., M. Weston, S. Henry, and G. Maguire. 2009. “Birds and Beaches, Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches in Victoria, Australia.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(2): 89–101.
Winegarner, B. 2012. “Off-Leash Dogs: Owners Fight Increased Ticketing at Glen Canyon Park.” SF Weekly, August 1. Accessed April 22, 2015. www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/off-leash-dogs-owners-fight-increased-ticketing-at-glen-canyon-park/Content?oid=2185863.
Wolch, J. 2002. “Anima Urbis.” Progress in Human Geography 26(6): 721–742.
Wolch, J., K. West, and T. Gaines. 1995. “Trans-Species Urban Theory.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(6): 735–760.
Wood, L., B. Giles-Corti, M. Bulsara, and D. Bosch. 2007. “More Than a Furry Companion: The Ripple Effect of Companion Animals on Neighborhood Interactions and Sense of Community.” Society and Animals 15(1): 43–56. doi:10.1163/156853007x169333.