Dog opponent Becky Evans has facts all wrong

In a recent letter to the SF Examiner, Becky Evans takes issue with an earlier Examiner article, claiming that "Joel Engardio is well off-base with his screed about parks".  Instead, it is Ms. Evans who has the facts wrong.  Responding by her bullet points.

1. "The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a national park".  
     Wrong.  It is a National Recreation Area.  There is a difference.  As you can see by the list on that page, most NRAs are not even managed by the National Park Service!

2. "San Francisco gave its parks to the GGNRA irrevocably. Period."
    Wrong.  Proposition F in 1973, says "in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction".  And the The Deed of Transfer for Fort Funston (for example) contains the following clause: "to hold only for so long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation and park purposes".  Now, one could argue whether the proposed GGNRA regulations are in breach of said restriction, but the transfer is very clearly revocable.

3. " No one is trying to apply backcountry rules to these parks".  
    Maybe.  But when you go online to see various petitions to restrict off-leash dog walking, they come from organizations like WildEquity, whose mission is "unites the grassroots conservation and environmental justice movements in campaigns that build a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth".  Nothing about recreation there.  Or from the Center for Biological Diversity, which "works through science, law and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction."  Again, nothing about recreation.  Becky Evans is a chairwoman and spokesperson for the Sierra Club.  Nothing wrong with any of that, but these are all groups with primary goals of wilderness (er, one has "Wild" in it's name, duh) and species preservation.  Laudable goals, but yes, they are bringing "back-countryish" rules to the  GGNRA.

4. "The GGNRA is one of 401 units of the Park Service, and no matter what the name of the park, they are all bound by the same regulations.".  
   Wrong.  Do a quick Google search for "national park special regulations", and you'll find a lot.  Two early hits were a special regulation for winter tours in Yellowstone, and another that authorizes limited off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras.  The National Park Service clearly does have different regulations for different areas.

5. "The Park Service is trying to work out a special regulation for the GGNRA which would give dogs more freedom than in other national parks..."  
   Stop right there.  First, this contradicts her claim in #4 that they all have the same regulations.  Proving my rebuttal to her!  Second, and more importantly, GGNRA is not a National Park.  As for the "more freedom", what GGNRA is trying to do is give dogs far less freedom than they have had in the past.