Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Off-Leash Groups Attack National Parks
Environmental, Park, and Animal Welfare Groups Condemn Off-leash Group’s Attempt to End National Park System’s Preservation Mandate
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December, 8, 2005
Center for Biological Diversity
California Native Plant Society, Yerba Buena Chapter
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Environmental Quality for Urban Parks
Action for Animals
Dune Ecological Restoration Team
Environmental, Park, and Animal Welfare Groups Condemn Off-leash Group’s Attempt to End National Park System’s Preservation Mandate
Off-leash advocates in San Francisco have announced that they are abandoning a consensus building process established by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to address pet management issues, according to a petition they are circulating at parks and on the internet this week. Instead, the advocates are urging dog owners to unite behind a controversial Bush Administration initiative to end the National Park System’s preservation mandate and replace it with a policy that favors motorized recreation and commercialization, a policy condemned by conservationists around the country.
The announcement was made just weeks before the first consensus-building meetings were to take place, putting over three years of park planning in jeopardy.
“As a dog guardian, I’m excited to share the GGNRA in a way that ensures that everyone—including plovers, plants, and people—can enjoy the park,” said Brent Plater, Bay Area Director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The irresponsible dog owners who have hitched their wagon with the Bush Administration and those who want to mine Yosemite, run off-road vehicles in Yellowstone, and develop the Great Smokey Mountains discredit San Francisco’s animal welfare movement. I call on all of San Francisco’s dog owners to join me in demanding that the D.O.G. groups stop advancing the Bush agenda. ”
The GGNRA is one of the most biologically diverse places in North America, and in 1988 it was designated as part of the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations, the same status given to Brazil’s Central Amazon rainforests. It contains more imperiled species than Yosemite, Yellowstone, Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks combined.
However, off-leash groups have demanded that dogs be allowed to roam without leads throughout the GGNRA’s most sensitive wildlife habitats, despite the fact that park biologists have called off-leash dogs “the most significant recreational threat” to imperiled species such as the western snowy plover.
But the GGNRA already has the most generous domestic animal access policy in the country. Because of this, the National Park System’s pet management regulations have been supported by responsible animal welfare groups such as the ASPCA, PETA, and the American Humane Association, and over 70% of Bay Area residents support the National Park System’s pet management regulations.
Nevertheless, environmentalists, advocates for children and youth, advocates for the elderly and the disabled, and several government agencies have agreed to participate in a “negotiated rulemaking” to address the off-leash group’s concerns. These efforts now appear to be in jeopardy, and the off-leash group’s promotion of the Bush Administration’s policy puts the GGNRA’s irreplaceable biological and cultural resources at great risk.
“The National Park System protects monuments to our Nation’s greatest war heroes, African-American leaders, and our most pristine wilderness areas,” said Plater. “The Bush Administration’s new policy initiative would undermine the preservation of these great places, and the off-leash group’s decision to walk away from a consensus process and embrace this policy is simply irresponsible.”
Analysis of the Bush Administration Policy endorsed by D.O.G. Groups:
http://www.npca.org/policyrewrites/management_policies_factsheet_10_27_05.pdf
For more information about pet management regulations at the GGNRA:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/leash08-16-05.html
December, 8, 2005
Center for Biological Diversity
California Native Plant Society, Yerba Buena Chapter
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Environmental Quality for Urban Parks
Action for Animals
Dune Ecological Restoration Team
Environmental, Park, and Animal Welfare Groups Condemn Off-leash Group’s Attempt to End National Park System’s Preservation Mandate
Off-leash advocates in San Francisco have announced that they are abandoning a consensus building process established by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to address pet management issues, according to a petition they are circulating at parks and on the internet this week. Instead, the advocates are urging dog owners to unite behind a controversial Bush Administration initiative to end the National Park System’s preservation mandate and replace it with a policy that favors motorized recreation and commercialization, a policy condemned by conservationists around the country.
The announcement was made just weeks before the first consensus-building meetings were to take place, putting over three years of park planning in jeopardy.
“As a dog guardian, I’m excited to share the GGNRA in a way that ensures that everyone—including plovers, plants, and people—can enjoy the park,” said Brent Plater, Bay Area Director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The irresponsible dog owners who have hitched their wagon with the Bush Administration and those who want to mine Yosemite, run off-road vehicles in Yellowstone, and develop the Great Smokey Mountains discredit San Francisco’s animal welfare movement. I call on all of San Francisco’s dog owners to join me in demanding that the D.O.G. groups stop advancing the Bush agenda. ”
The GGNRA is one of the most biologically diverse places in North America, and in 1988 it was designated as part of the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations, the same status given to Brazil’s Central Amazon rainforests. It contains more imperiled species than Yosemite, Yellowstone, Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks combined.
However, off-leash groups have demanded that dogs be allowed to roam without leads throughout the GGNRA’s most sensitive wildlife habitats, despite the fact that park biologists have called off-leash dogs “the most significant recreational threat” to imperiled species such as the western snowy plover.
But the GGNRA already has the most generous domestic animal access policy in the country. Because of this, the National Park System’s pet management regulations have been supported by responsible animal welfare groups such as the ASPCA, PETA, and the American Humane Association, and over 70% of Bay Area residents support the National Park System’s pet management regulations.
Nevertheless, environmentalists, advocates for children and youth, advocates for the elderly and the disabled, and several government agencies have agreed to participate in a “negotiated rulemaking” to address the off-leash group’s concerns. These efforts now appear to be in jeopardy, and the off-leash group’s promotion of the Bush Administration’s policy puts the GGNRA’s irreplaceable biological and cultural resources at great risk.
“The National Park System protects monuments to our Nation’s greatest war heroes, African-American leaders, and our most pristine wilderness areas,” said Plater. “The Bush Administration’s new policy initiative would undermine the preservation of these great places, and the off-leash group’s decision to walk away from a consensus process and embrace this policy is simply irresponsible.”
Analysis of the Bush Administration Policy endorsed by D.O.G. Groups:
http://www.npca.org/policyrewrites/management_policies_factsheet_10_27_05.pdf
For more information about pet management regulations at the GGNRA:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/leash08-16-05.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Ocean Beach DOG: Racist, Property Rights Dogma
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php
Ocean Beach DOG
News & Alerts
Sign the Petition and Comment to NPS
(posted Nov 23, 2005)
The National Park Service has released a new proposed Management Plan for our National Parks, and all we have to say is thank God for President Bush. Should this plan be accepted as written, it will greatly enhance our opportunities for recreation in our National Parks.
In a related matter, OBDOG members are circulating a petition to terminate Negotiated Rulemaking and institute the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section 7 Special Regulation for the GGNRA, because 1979 is as far as science and policy should ever progress related to environmental protection.
The National Park Service (NPS) is in the process of updating their Management Plan (again, thank God for Our Dear Leader). The update is hundreds of pages long, so don't bother to read it for yourself and see all the evil plundering of public lands it enables. However, the change that is the most significant is the decision to give recreation and enjoyment of the National Parks a greater emphasis, and that means our selfish desire to do whatever we please on national land. In the past, The Organic Act of 1918 placed preservation of the Parks over recreational use or enjoyment in all circumstances. What the fuck is that? We, here in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), can attest to the fact that our National Parks have changed in nature, but we like our dogs better than nature. The Organic Act worked well at Yosemite for those suckers, but is not flexible for the needs of an Urban Recreation Area like right where we live, and it intrudes on our self-obsessed lives. The updated Management Plan states: "The Park Service recognizes that activities in which park visitors engage can cause impacts to park resources and values, and who the hell really cares about 'impacts'. The Service must balance the sometimes competing obligations of conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks (wink, wink)."
Please support this new and improved Management Plan. Vote Republican! And be sure to donate to Rep. Pombo's re-election campaign. He's on the side of dog lovers everywhere.
News & Alerts
Sign the Petition and Comment to NPS
(posted Nov 23, 2005)
The National Park Service has released a new proposed Management Plan for our National Parks, and all we have to say is thank God for President Bush. Should this plan be accepted as written, it will greatly enhance our opportunities for recreation in our National Parks.
In a related matter, OBDOG members are circulating a petition to terminate Negotiated Rulemaking and institute the 1979 Pet Policy as a Section 7 Special Regulation for the GGNRA, because 1979 is as far as science and policy should ever progress related to environmental protection.
The National Park Service (NPS) is in the process of updating their Management Plan (again, thank God for Our Dear Leader). The update is hundreds of pages long, so don't bother to read it for yourself and see all the evil plundering of public lands it enables. However, the change that is the most significant is the decision to give recreation and enjoyment of the National Parks a greater emphasis, and that means our selfish desire to do whatever we please on national land. In the past, The Organic Act of 1918 placed preservation of the Parks over recreational use or enjoyment in all circumstances. What the fuck is that? We, here in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), can attest to the fact that our National Parks have changed in nature, but we like our dogs better than nature. The Organic Act worked well at Yosemite for those suckers, but is not flexible for the needs of an Urban Recreation Area like right where we live, and it intrudes on our self-obsessed lives. The updated Management Plan states: "The Park Service recognizes that activities in which park visitors engage can cause impacts to park resources and values, and who the hell really cares about 'impacts'. The Service must balance the sometimes competing obligations of conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks (wink, wink)."
Please support this new and improved Management Plan. Vote Republican! And be sure to donate to Rep. Pombo's re-election campaign. He's on the side of dog lovers everywhere.
For more information:
http://oceanbeachdog.home.mindspring.com/i...
The above poster would have us believe that Pombo is "on the side of dog lovers everywhere"
It would be more accurate to say that Pombo is totally on the side of CORPORATE LAP DOG lovers. After all, that's what he is, a corporate lap dog.
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chair of the House Resources Committee, has advanced legislation that would spark the largest public land grab in U.S. history. It's in sections (6101-6107) of HR4241.
Google "Pombo" and read about his legalized land grab.
It would be more accurate to say that Pombo is totally on the side of CORPORATE LAP DOG lovers. After all, that's what he is, a corporate lap dog.
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chair of the House Resources Committee, has advanced legislation that would spark the largest public land grab in U.S. history. It's in sections (6101-6107) of HR4241.
Google "Pombo" and read about his legalized land grab.
This is not "from the horse's mouth. The original document has been altered. If you click the link to read the original, you will see that phrases like, "and all we have to say is thank God for President Bush," and "but we like our dogs better than nature," and "Vote Republican!" have been inserted to change the meaning of the original. This is fundamentally dishonest. The people who did it should be ashamed of themselves for trying deceive you. The editors here should be ashamed for themselves for allowing it. No wonder people mistrust Indymedia. How can Indymedia be trusted when it publishes disinformation?
it's a joke, dumbass. you think "what the fuck is that?", "our dear leader", and "wink, wink" might have been giveaways? not for your hyper-literal mind maybe
a link was provided for people to see for themselves, so there was no "fundamental" dishonesty. lighten up, frances
sad thing is the puffed up version still rings true in the giddy excitement at bush's proposals to dismantle protections for public lands, even if they didn't mention bush by name
This press release is from someone who manipulating the public. Very clever and stupid at the same time.
The article implies that DOG groupS have walked out of the negoiations.
I think ONE DOG group, Ocean Beach DOG, left. The rest are still at the table. Of course that means there are now only about 5 off-leash groups, and 15 on-leash group instead of 6 to 15.....
The article implies that DOG groupS have walked out of the negoiations.
I think ONE DOG group, Ocean Beach DOG, left. The rest are still at the table. Of course that means there are now only about 5 off-leash groups, and 15 on-leash group instead of 6 to 15.....
What other off-leash groups are there? Where can that information be found? I have only seen reports of OBD working with the right-wingers at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
On the other side are 10 groups: Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action for Animals, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks, Center for Biological Diversity, Golden Gate Audubon Society, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, Yerba Buena Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, Dune Ecological Restoration Team, and San Francisco League of Conservation Voters.
By the way, the press release does not imply several "groups" walked away. It clearly states that "advocates" walked away and advocates, the most boisterous ones in fact, did walk away.
"Off-leash advocates in San Francisco have announced that they are abandoning a consensus building process."
On the other side are 10 groups: Guide Dogs for the Blind, Action for Animals, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, Environmental Quality for Urban Parks, Center for Biological Diversity, Golden Gate Audubon Society, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, Yerba Buena Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, Dune Ecological Restoration Team, and San Francisco League of Conservation Voters.
By the way, the press release does not imply several "groups" walked away. It clearly states that "advocates" walked away and advocates, the most boisterous ones in fact, did walk away.
"Off-leash advocates in San Francisco have announced that they are abandoning a consensus building process."
It's ONLY Ocean Beach dog, not "D.O.G." or off-leash adovcates, as the article implies.
Of course, the article didn't state "ALL off-leash advocates", just like not ALL Center for Bio Diversity lawyers are idiots, not are all Calif Native Plant or Sierra Club members. Just a minority.
Of course, the article didn't state "ALL off-leash advocates", just like not ALL Center for Bio Diversity lawyers are idiots, not are all Calif Native Plant or Sierra Club members. Just a minority.
Disinformation, generalities, and broad brush strokes are the tactics employed by those who do not wish to tell the truth. Brent Plater is such an individual. Here a couple of examples. First, when he asked for a stipulation to intervene on the appeal in U.S. v. Barley (which reinstated the 1979 Pet Policy), he was told that "putting aside" the CBD's political and social agenda, intervention on appeal to raise issues and evidence not presented to a trial court was improper. Plater then filed a request to intervene and stated only that the refusal to stipulate was based on the CBD's "political and social agenda." He did not, as required by an officer of the Court, even mention the legal basis for the refusal to stipulate. Second, during the period of time Plater was seeking intervention, he appeared before the San Francisco Police Commission (of which I have a verbatim transcript) and stated that the defendants in the criminal action had actually sued the GGNRA to enlarge the areas subject to off-leash recreation withini the GGNRA. When he was told a request for public censure would be made at the next Police Commission meeting, he did not even appear.
There is more: at the hearing on the appeal in U.S. v. Barley, the court asked the U.S. Attorney (with Plater sitting at the government counsels' table) whether an emergency was being claimed such that the government could rescind the Pet Policy (under 36 CFR 1.5) without public notice and comment. The U.S. Attorney stated that no emergency was being claimed. This finding is referenced in the Court's Order of Affirmance. Then, only a few months later, Plater petitioned the Department of Interior claiming that the less than one-percent of land in the GGNRA in which off-leash recreation is permitted is destroying the rest of the GGNRA, and that off-leash recreation is actually harmful to dogs. Just go to the OBD website and look at the opposition to Plater's petition and you will see that the evidence he relies upon (which was handed to him by the GGNRA) falls very short of making his case. Do you trust such a person with the truth?
The 1979 Pet Policy was reached after considerable public input in 1977 and 1979, including environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. It worked just fine until it was illegally rescinded by the GGNRA. The notion of "Negotiated Rulemaking" was only thrown ou by the GGNRA in 2002 after it thought it had gotten away with its illegal actions, and done so as a bone to the dog groups in order to avoid litigation. But three individuals challenged the GGNRA's action and were put on trial for criminal charges. Both the trial court and court of appeal found the GGNRA had acted illegally in not going thorough public notice and comment (a very democratic process) before terminating the Pet Policy.
NR is only to be used when there is a "need for a rule" and where the Committee makeup is such that there is a likelihood of reaching a consensus. Neither of those prerequisites exists currently, given that the Pet Policy has been reinstated, and given Plater and his ilk's position that dogs should never be allowed off-leash in the GGNRA or in City parks. Thus, the OBD petition simply asks for the GGNRA to live with the law and implement the long-standing Pet Policy as a Special Regulation. It does not ask for an expansion of the less than one percent of the land allowed for off-leash recreation. It does not seek to alter the built-in protections in the Policy such that anyone with a dog bothering other people, other dogs, or wildlife can be cited.
There is utterly no credible showing that this miniscule amount of land for off-leash recreation is damaging anything other than the agendas of dog haters. Indeed, in 1996, when the GGNRA was embarking upon improvements at Crissy Field, it made a specific finding that the improvements, including the off-leash recreation allowed under the Pet Policy, posed no significant impact on the enviroment (the "FONSI"). You never see Plater and his ilk mentioning such facts.
Make up your mind after reviewing all the facts, not the rhetoric of extremist groups that try to place blame for Man's destruction of the environment on dogs. That is just nonsense and absurd, but it never stops the Plater's of the world from distorting the truth. And you will never see on the self-aggrandizing CBD website the fact that a jury found it liable (to the tune of $800,000 in damages, including punitive damages) earlier this year for defaming an Arizona farmer. How much more do you need to know about the CBD?
There is more: at the hearing on the appeal in U.S. v. Barley, the court asked the U.S. Attorney (with Plater sitting at the government counsels' table) whether an emergency was being claimed such that the government could rescind the Pet Policy (under 36 CFR 1.5) without public notice and comment. The U.S. Attorney stated that no emergency was being claimed. This finding is referenced in the Court's Order of Affirmance. Then, only a few months later, Plater petitioned the Department of Interior claiming that the less than one-percent of land in the GGNRA in which off-leash recreation is permitted is destroying the rest of the GGNRA, and that off-leash recreation is actually harmful to dogs. Just go to the OBD website and look at the opposition to Plater's petition and you will see that the evidence he relies upon (which was handed to him by the GGNRA) falls very short of making his case. Do you trust such a person with the truth?
The 1979 Pet Policy was reached after considerable public input in 1977 and 1979, including environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. It worked just fine until it was illegally rescinded by the GGNRA. The notion of "Negotiated Rulemaking" was only thrown ou by the GGNRA in 2002 after it thought it had gotten away with its illegal actions, and done so as a bone to the dog groups in order to avoid litigation. But three individuals challenged the GGNRA's action and were put on trial for criminal charges. Both the trial court and court of appeal found the GGNRA had acted illegally in not going thorough public notice and comment (a very democratic process) before terminating the Pet Policy.
NR is only to be used when there is a "need for a rule" and where the Committee makeup is such that there is a likelihood of reaching a consensus. Neither of those prerequisites exists currently, given that the Pet Policy has been reinstated, and given Plater and his ilk's position that dogs should never be allowed off-leash in the GGNRA or in City parks. Thus, the OBD petition simply asks for the GGNRA to live with the law and implement the long-standing Pet Policy as a Special Regulation. It does not ask for an expansion of the less than one percent of the land allowed for off-leash recreation. It does not seek to alter the built-in protections in the Policy such that anyone with a dog bothering other people, other dogs, or wildlife can be cited.
There is utterly no credible showing that this miniscule amount of land for off-leash recreation is damaging anything other than the agendas of dog haters. Indeed, in 1996, when the GGNRA was embarking upon improvements at Crissy Field, it made a specific finding that the improvements, including the off-leash recreation allowed under the Pet Policy, posed no significant impact on the enviroment (the "FONSI"). You never see Plater and his ilk mentioning such facts.
Make up your mind after reviewing all the facts, not the rhetoric of extremist groups that try to place blame for Man's destruction of the environment on dogs. That is just nonsense and absurd, but it never stops the Plater's of the world from distorting the truth. And you will never see on the self-aggrandizing CBD website the fact that a jury found it liable (to the tune of $800,000 in damages, including punitive damages) earlier this year for defaming an Arizona farmer. How much more do you need to know about the CBD?
OCean Beach Dog was slated for Negotiated Rulemaking Committee membership. However, in another act of utter hypocricy, the GGNRA and theoretically neutral "convenors" (would be mediators) booted OBD off the Committee because it has put the facts out on its website. At the same time, the CBD, GG Audubon Society, Coleman Advocates, etc. put false spins on "Incident Reports" handed to them by the GGNRA in their petition seeking to avoid the Court's ruling by asking the GGNRA to declare a state of emergency in the GGNRA. I would think people would find it interesting that the CBD persistenly claims in court that National Park Superintendants have broad authority to enact rules for their particular parks. Judge Alsup found this very interesting, and when CBD's mouthpiece joined in the government's argument (isn't the CBD anti-Bush or just Bush-league?) that the GGNRA Superintendant lacked the authority to implement the 1979 Pet Policy, Judge Alsup reminded Plater of his group's prior positions and told him to "be careful what you ask for." When Plater began speaking over Judge Alsup and not answering his questions, the Court told him to sit down and shut up. But he never learns.
The first step in determining the veracity of a post is to simply check out the assertions being made by those doing the posting. I suggest visiting the web site(s) cited in the posting. Verify that the content states exactly what the the posting is claiming it states. Look at the actual court documents referenced by those posting. Are they as described? One should also check out credible newspaper sources for articles describing the events depicted in the posting. It really is very easy to confirm who is actually telling the truth.
I suggest that any of you reading this blog visit http://OceanBeachDOG.home.mindspring.com and find out for yourself. You be the detective. You will find, as thousands have found before you, that there is only one stated objective with respect to the OBDOG group. The Mission statement is clear: OBDOG wants want to ensure that Ocean Beach legally allows off-leash recreation. They are putting forth a petition to ask that the 1979 Pet Policy is adopted as a Special Regulation in the GGNRA, thus ensuring that future generations will continue to enjoy the less than 1% of the GGNRA already designated for off-leash recreation. There are no pro-Bush or anti-environment rants on the OBDOG web site. In fact, it is obvious that the group does not advocate any political position. They are not advocating the total destruction of the National Park Service as their detractors are stating. They are not calling for oil drilling and uncontrolled snowmobiling in the National Parks. They just want continued off-leash access in an area designated for that use by the GGNRA as well as other groups that represented a strong environmental interest (including the Sierra Club and the Golden Gate Audobon Society) in 1979.
Another test of honesty is whether or not those posting are willing to use their actual name on their blog entry. Do they hide behind a ficticious identity, fearful that their lies will catch up with them? Fearful that as a participant themselves in the Negotiated Rulemaking process, they may be dismissed because of their flagrant display of "bad faith"?
You be the judge. It really is easy. Do your homework. Let's put an end to the mentality that the CBD and Brent Plater thrive upon, i.e., if it is posted on the Internet and indexed by Google, it must be the truth.
Thanks for your consideration.
Rocky Golub
I suggest that any of you reading this blog visit http://OceanBeachDOG.home.mindspring.com and find out for yourself. You be the detective. You will find, as thousands have found before you, that there is only one stated objective with respect to the OBDOG group. The Mission statement is clear: OBDOG wants want to ensure that Ocean Beach legally allows off-leash recreation. They are putting forth a petition to ask that the 1979 Pet Policy is adopted as a Special Regulation in the GGNRA, thus ensuring that future generations will continue to enjoy the less than 1% of the GGNRA already designated for off-leash recreation. There are no pro-Bush or anti-environment rants on the OBDOG web site. In fact, it is obvious that the group does not advocate any political position. They are not advocating the total destruction of the National Park Service as their detractors are stating. They are not calling for oil drilling and uncontrolled snowmobiling in the National Parks. They just want continued off-leash access in an area designated for that use by the GGNRA as well as other groups that represented a strong environmental interest (including the Sierra Club and the Golden Gate Audobon Society) in 1979.
Another test of honesty is whether or not those posting are willing to use their actual name on their blog entry. Do they hide behind a ficticious identity, fearful that their lies will catch up with them? Fearful that as a participant themselves in the Negotiated Rulemaking process, they may be dismissed because of their flagrant display of "bad faith"?
You be the judge. It really is easy. Do your homework. Let's put an end to the mentality that the CBD and Brent Plater thrive upon, i.e., if it is posted on the Internet and indexed by Google, it must be the truth.
Thanks for your consideration.
Rocky Golub
There is one ring of truth to this jerk's rant, that is, especially when it comes to the GGNRA, that these are "public lands" and it is, and should be, up to the public to decide how they are used. The CBD, with their mouthpiece Plater, cannot live with less than one percent of these lands (most of which are State-owned tidelands held in public trust for the use of the public's recreation) being legally "off-leash." The CBD claims that this miniscule amount of land use is destroying the rest of the GGNRA. Read its petition and the opposition and decide for yourself whether the CBD has proven anything other than that they are dog-haters parading under the guise of "environmentalists." That's an easy flag to fly in the Bay Area, but has become so overused that it has lost credibility. There are plenty of truly good causes to be taken on in response to Bush-league tactics. Leave the dogs their small bone.
Stephen Sayad cannot discern his mental condtion from reality. You can read about his many trips to doctors in an attempt to cure his panic disorder. He is prone to violence and if you see him ranting immediately call law enforcement. Do not approach him alone.
After seeing this
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/1244/auction.html
Stepehn Sayad sent this:
From: "Steve Sayad" Add to Address Book
To: me
Subject: Retract or Be Sued
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:38:11 -0700
You piece of shit.
You have 24 hours to retract your statements about me.
I know who you are, I know where you live, and you will regret the day you messed with me.
Stephen S. Sayad
Attorney at Law
Paras Law Group
655 Redwood Highway, Suite 216
Mill Valley, California 94941
Telephone: (415) 380-9222
Facsimile: (415) 380-9223
E-Mail: SSayad [at] paraslaw.com
be careful and don't believe a word he says.
After seeing this
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/1244/auction.html
Stepehn Sayad sent this:
From: "Steve Sayad" Add to Address Book
To: me
Subject: Retract or Be Sued
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:38:11 -0700
You piece of shit.
You have 24 hours to retract your statements about me.
I know who you are, I know where you live, and you will regret the day you messed with me.
Stephen S. Sayad
Attorney at Law
Paras Law Group
655 Redwood Highway, Suite 216
Mill Valley, California 94941
Telephone: (415) 380-9222
Facsimile: (415) 380-9223
E-Mail: SSayad [at] paraslaw.com
be careful and don't believe a word he says.
My name is Jacky Petrie. I used to breed Newfoundlands in Canada. But everything I bred was dysplastic and the wrong color. That did not make me stop, however, because I will do and say anything for money. I am coming forward now, after all these years, because I think that for my mental health (I have severe anxiety and depression) I need to confess that I was really nothing but a fraud. Now I live a lonely life. I have a few rescues but am too old to really do anything. Time has passed me by and I am bitter. So I find myself being a bully by saying malicious things about others. I find Facebook a very good forum for doing so. Somehow, though, I think this will all come back to haunt me. Is there help for me?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network