San Francisco, the doggiest city in America. Or is it?

San Francisco is a doggy city. Dogs outnumber children, it is widely believed. They are allowed in many shops and offices, dog-walking areas are tucked away in every available corner and water bowls are left out for them on the street. In every square and park, canines galore chase balls, sniff indiscriminately and gossip with their fellows. Yet now, an extraordinary threat has risen its head in this most dog-friendly of cities, a threat that I, for whom the dogginess of San Francisco was an instant attraction, can hardly believe is true.

Fanny dog, one of my favourite walking companions, off the leash

Fanny on the beach at Crissy Field

In short, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, an extension of the National Park Service, is proposing to ban off-leash dog-walking in 90% of the currently open areas within its remit. The list of places it would affect is lengthy and shocking: Crissy Field, Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, Land’s End, Baker Beach and more in San Francisco, and everywhere but Rodeo Beach in Marin County. These are gloriously wide-open places beloved by walkers, horse-riders, cyclists, kite-surfers, picnickers and, of course, dogs.

The vast expanse of Ocean Beach, a favourite with dogs and walkers alike

One of the city's many dog walkers with their charges at Fort Funston

There might be over 100 dogs frequenting these places at any one time, but there is seldom even an angry woof, as they all seem to get on remarkably well. In fact, they probably rub along better being off the leash, as they don’t feel trapped and they know they can get away if they feel the need. Of course, it all relies on dog owners being responsible, clearing up after their pets and making sure they’re sufficiently well trained to be seen in public, but San Franciscans seem particularly responsible in this respect. The vast majority of owners get their dogs from rescue centres, and I have heard several inspiring stories of neglected and frightened animals being given a new lease of life. A new lease of life that is enhanced immeasurably by being able to run and explore to their hearts content off the leash.

Fanny definitely prefers to be bounding free!

The problem is that the GGNRA seems to be changing the direction of its purpose, from providing recreational space for everyone to preserving open space and offering a 'national park experience’. The emphasis is changing from recreation to conservation, which is more in line with the non-profit organization GoldenGate National Parks Conservancy. The latter’s remit is to ‘preserve the Golden Gate National Parks, enhance the park visitor experience and build a community dedicated to conserving the parks for the future’. This is all very admirable and no one would contest their work, but the GGNRA should have a different slant, as befits the ‘Recreation’ part of its name. The changes could have an adverse impact on all kinds of park users, not just dog walkers, as the wording of the plan is worryingly open-ended. It talks about how it intends to ‘restore natural integrity while providing a backcountry-type visitor experience’ and ‘agressively’ tackle ‘external threats’ to natural resources, and states that ‘visitor use would be controlled’. Presumably, the GGNRA would decide what constituted an ‘external threat’ – dogs?! – and the idea of controlling visitor use conjures all kinds of fence-related spectres. Park officials say that dogs disturb wildlife and destroy vegetation, but such opinions are contested by opponents, who say that the effects of dogs are exaggerated. Besides, areas such as Fort Funston and Crissy Field have always been intended as open spaces where the people of San Francisco, and their dogs, can escape the pressures of the city. Although their conservation is important, and vital work is done to restore habitats and preserve wildlife, they are not mini Yellowstones and the primary purpose of giving people space to breathe should be prioritized.

Some of Ocean Beach is a 'snowy plover protection area', 

meaning dogs should be kept on a lead near the birds. 

The changes could lead to parts of the beach being fenced off altogether

But it is not over yet. There has been a public outcry at the plans, unsurprisingly, and the dog owners of San Francisco won't let this go through without a fight. The Save Off Leash campaign has an excellent and comprehensive website detailing affected areas and how people can protest, together with lengthy examinations of the exact wording of the proposals and links to related sites. The public has until February 18^th to add their voice to the outcry by submitting comments to the GGNRA. I can’t imagine a San Francisco without the likes of my canine friends, Fanny, Sebastian, Delilah, Gal and Whisky, charging around free and unfettered by their leads or unwelcome barriers. If they could talk, their reaction to the proposals would no doubt be vociferous. WOOF.

With thanks to Chad Jones and Todd Stein, proud owners of Fanny

This is what Fanny likes to do - not trot along on the end of a lead!

Queen of the beach

I doubt any owners are going to want to enter the freezing waters of the Bay

just because their dogs want to!