By Erin Sherbert
By Howard Cole
By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
Dog owners barking up the wrong tree: Thanks to Matt Smith for the interesting read about the conflict between native habitat restorationists and dog owners ("The Nature of Politics," July 24). Conflicts over the city's limited space are to be expected, but the antagonistic tenor of the dog owners is disappointing.
The California Exotic Pest Plant Council commends the work of San Francisco's Natural Areas Program. By engaging volunteers in science-based stewardship [of] the unique habitats that still exist within the city, the program cultivates an understanding of natural processes and a deeper connection to place.
Other California cities look to San Francisco as an example of innovative natural areas management. The city should be proud of its visionary program. Dog owners and other open space users no doubt value the city's unique natural heritage, and they should negotiate respectfully with those working to maintain it.
Executive Director, California Exotic Pest Plant Council
BerkeleyTo be fair, we asked a snowy plover for comment, and he said the same about you:I was outraged to read Matt Smith's column. In reference to his comment "In short, Rec and Park formally established one of the most dog-friendly leash policies in urban America": This is farcical. Did he even read the proposal? Pets would be relegated to tennis-court-size pens when -- and more importantly, if -- Wreck and Park found the money to build them. The ticketing for off-leash activity would take place immediately, of course -- no waiting on the building of the tiny pens.
I care about my dog and his freedom to run and play with his friends. I love the camaraderie with other dog owners, and this is my major form of recreation. I do not care about snowy plovers or native plants; they could all disappear tomorrow and my life would not be affected one whit.
I will continue to exercise my dog off leash in areas safe for him and useless for pretty much anything else -- most specifically Fort Funston. I will pay fines, go to court, or even go to jail, I don't care. The ranger station at Fort Funston flies the American flag. That and the taxes I pay give me the right, not the privilege, to use those lands as I see fit as long as I do them no harm and bother no one else.
The Army knew 50 years ago that ice plant is the best way to prevent erosion, yet I see the Natural Area envirofreaks out there ripping it up. Insanity. If they're not stopped, in 10 years there will beno Fort Funston. It's just a stupid hobby to them, and if they succeed in getting rid of all the off-leash dogs out there, the druggies will move in.
There are so many areas people can go if they don't like dogs (hell, for one). I just don't understand why, in the city of St. Francis, we can't have just a couple of beaches to let man's best friend run free and play.
It's a lovely wish. Been in S.F. long?: What an excellent piece of investigative journalism. It is a pleasure to find someone actually going out and getting the facts and observing things for himself.
What we are dealing with is competition over limited open space. I wish there were an open forum where both sides could unemotionally look at the whole picture, understand what possibilities are available and what the consequences of various actions will be, and thus be able to act responsibly. Your article is a very good start.
There are no bad plants, only bad behavior: As a longtime California native plant gardener, I really enjoyed Matt Smith's "The Nature of Politics," and I hope this won't be the last we hear from him on the subject. My experience has been that there is a critical lack of public awareness about conservation in general and species invasion in particular. I never cease to be amazed at the number of Bay Area residents who can look at areas overgrown with eucalyptus, ivy, and Scotch broom and think that they're looking at nature, when in fact they're looking at an ongoing environmental disaster that has annihilated ancient ecosystems and crowded many indigenous plants and animals into extinction.
Hundreds of people can't be wrong: Matt Smith's article is almost comical in its preposterousness: rife with inaccuracies, opinions stated as fact, and perhaps most notably the positing of a laundry list of people who are all, per Smith, self-interested and wrong on the issue.
What are the chances that hundreds of people from several diverse community groups, public officials, and a respected Chroniclecolumnist would all question the conduct of the Natural Areas Program if in fact there were no problems?
I would suggest that Mr. Smith do better research next time, but my strong guess is that he is simply using "shock jock" techniques to gain notoriety and has no interest in journalistic integrity.
A shrub hugger's lament: Thank you for your calm and objective article on the Natural Areas Program; I hope the hate mail you will inevitably receive from dog and feral cat "advocates" won't be too nasty. I volunteer for the National Park Service's Presidio Park Stewards program and, as you pointed out, the work we do has been subjected to the same nasty rhetoric and ridicule.