A yearslong effort to let dogs walk freely on portions of San Mateo County nature trails failed to clear its most recent hurdle, Planning Commission approval, due to concerns around the environmental ramifications of the program and potential hindrance to access for some residents.
“I understand the desire to let your dogs run free and be dogs. Many years ago I was into that. Now I’m more conscious that our dogs are an extension of the ever expanding human impact on the natural environment as wild places shrink and disappear and species go extinct,” Commissioner Lisa Ketcham said during Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting. “I don’t think it’s too much to ask to keep dogs on leash in this small refuge in order to protect the wildlife.”
As proposed, the county’s Park Department requested approval for a Coastal Development Permit from the Planning Commission, allowing the department to establish an off-leash dog recreation pilot program on a limited portion of Pillar Point Bluff trails and most trails in Quarry Park.
Following a 12-month implementation window, data collected during the program would be used to determine whether off-leash dogs could safely become a more permanent fixture in the areas, Parks Department Director Nicholas Calderon said.
The proposal has garnered mixed feedback from the public. Some strong proponents of the program argued that the county has limited areas where pet owners can freely hike with their pets who have become members of their families.
On-leash dogs are permitted on trails at Quarry Park, Pillar Point Bluff, Bay and Coastal trails and Junipero Serra Park but off-leash dogs are prohibited on all county park trails, Calderon noted.
“No county parks allow off-leash dogs at this time which means we’ve never been able to study and make data-driven decisions on what off-leash dog recreation would do in the park system,” Calderon said. “Dogs are not being introduced to these parks for the first time. The manner in which they are allowed to legally recreate is legally expanding.”
Equitable access to parks was also raised by those against the program who suggested some may no longer visit the trails if it meant interacting with unleashed dogs. Above all, environmental impacts were the top concerns highlighted by those speaking as individuals and as representatives of environmental advocacy groups including Green Foothills and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter, given the number of sensitive habitats in the county parks system.
Calderon noted the selected trails were a ways away from most sensitive areas and barriers would have been placed where necessary. Rangers would also be deployed at random times throughout the week to observe and take record of behaviors and to enforce a number of rules requiring owners and handlers to maintain control of their animals.
While appreciative of arguments for launching the full pilot, Commissioner Frederick Hansson and Ketcham largely shared the environmental concerns and said they could only back a program that excluded off-leash dogs at Pillar Point.
“For me dogs are family but dogs are not people and they don’t have or enjoy the same rights as people,” Hansson said. “Let’s do a pilot at Quarry Park and take Pillar Point off the table.”
Commissioner Kumkum Gupta and Chair Manuel Ramirez stood firmly on opposing sides. Gupta, who noted she and her husband frequently walk the trails, sided against the pilot program after shedding doubt owners would have enough control of their animals when around other dogs and walkers.
But Ramirez was in favor of the full proposal and argued owners typically know the behaviors of their pets and should be awarded the opportunity to prove they could take personal responsibility for their animals while enjoying the trails.
Siding with Calderon, Ramirez said the county would have the authority to not extend the pilot program if it proved unsuccessful.
“I believe that responsible owners know and understand dogs,” Ramirez said. “If dog owners understand the personality of their dogs you can either leash or unleash it.”
Ultimately, the commission voted 3-1 to deny the request after Calderon said he did not have authority to alter the program from what the Board of Supervisors had requested he pursue. The Parks Department now has the option to appeal the commission’s decision to the California Coastal Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
(2) comments
Dogs will not be “running free” as Ms Ketchum states. Dogs will need to be on the trail, close to their owners. Not on side trails, not near the bluffs. Read the study.
Since dogs have historically been at this area for decades (perhaps since the Ohlone) there wouldn’t be any new impact on wildlife. Which seems to be doing fine at this location. Nor is coastal scrub at any risk from dogs. My dog eats a lot of things, but coyote bush isn’t one of them.
The pilot study would have restricted the activity of dogs and protected sensitive areas. It would have monitored dog waste and any negative interactions dogs might have with others or wildlife would be strongly sanctioned, possibly leading to discontinuation of the pilot.
It would have made the bluff a better place to walk for everyone.
Without a pilot study we are left with pure speculation as to what the true impact of dogs on the environment actually is.
It’s too bad we can’t rely on our planning commission for thoughtful consideration and discussion. Years of planning went into assuring that natural areas were protected and dog walkers kept accountable. For people who haven’t put the effort into at least reading the study with its restrictions and regular monitoring, many seem to resort to knee jerk rejection of the idea that natural areas and dogs can safely coexist.
Yet they have done just that at Pillar Point Bluff for decades.
Amy Tezza
Coastside Dog
Finally a stop to this outrageous proliferation of dog ownership. I still see dog poo and their green bags everywhere. Their irritating yapping and barking are a major disturbance. While most dog owners are probably responsible, the many who aren't do not seem to care that many of us who do not like canines somehow should be forced to accept the pollution and destruction that these animals leave behind.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.