• cleanup responsibilities, noting fine for non-compliance,
• effective voice control of off-leash dogs,
• aggressive or uncontrollable dogs may not be brought into the area unless leashed and muzzled. (Note: while some breeds may be more aggressive than others, irresponsibly controlled dogs can be a problem no matter what the breed, while responsibly controlled dogs are a delight no matter what the breed. Control should emphasize behavior, not breed.)
• owners must prevent dogs from disturbing other park/beach users,
  
• adults, children and dogs must stay out of posted environmentally sensitive areas,
  
• all dogs must be properly licensed in the owner's community of residence and license tags must be affixed, and
  
• emergency and park ranger phone numbers should be displayed.

6. Conduct occasional enforcement sweeps as staff/budget permit. Warn accidental violators, cite and fine deliberate violators. (Deliberate: owner watching a dog defecate, doing nothing to clean up, not in possession of poop/scoop bag. Accidental: owner does not observe, but is in possession of poop/scoop bag. Deliberate: dog displays dangerous aggression and owner makes no effective control attempt. Etc.) Rationale: While the city can not afford continuous enforcement, random intervention will tend to keep things under control. Responsible dog owners dislike excrement and aggressive dogs (or people for that matter) as much as anybody else. Enforcement efforts could be guided by the number of complaints. Note: We'd like to see this kind of enforcement all along West Cliff Drive, and elsewhere in the city for that matter. It's not just an "off-leash" issue.

7. Take measures to better control and/or educate individuals who park near the restrooms all day, day after day and allow unsupervised dogs to wander.
Rationale: If there is any current dog problem, the often uncontrolled animals using the park as part of their living space are a big part of it. In general, these dogs appear to be less well trained and they are more territorial, because they are being fed in that spot and are essentially living in that spot. These visitors must obey the same rules. There are other problems associated with inappropriate use of the parking areas that we think are worthy of Parks & Recreation attention as well.

8. Provide well-stocked supplies of poop/scoop bags. Small signs should encourage owners to please bring their own, but the city should aim to ensure these never run out.

Rationale: the cost is low, and there should be no excuses for failure to clean up. Currently for budget reasons only limited bags are provided. FOLF members have recently begun to supplement the city supply as a helpful response in support of Park & Recreation efforts. FOLF plans to educate its members to bring their own bags in order to leave the city supply as an emergency backup and for visitors.

9. Park rules should be understandable and likely to have voluntary compliance by most users.
Rationale: rules that appear to be arbitrary are difficult to enforce. For example, arbitrary divisions of the park among different types of users are likely to be crossed. The current arbitrary dog hours create an artificial division that is problematic to enforce.

10. Engage community support for implementation as more fully described below.

Environmental Stewardship
Lighthouse Field is an urban park notable for its natural beauty and relatively undeveloped character. While it has certainly not been a native wild area at any time in living memory, it is still desirable to conserve the park and protect and enhance the environment. Some non-native changes may have been positive, for example the eucalyptus that now shelter monarch butterflies during the winter.

11. Study environmentally sensitive areas, and develop recommendations for protection of such areas. In the development of such recommendations, consider and balance the following factors:

• Lighthouse Field is an urban park, surrounded on all sides by urban construction and busy roads.
• Lighthouse Field has long ago ceased to be in a native condition.
• Any use of the park by residents or visitors will have some impact. The park provides recreational facilities that are highly valued by community members. Controls appropriate to a pure wilderness are not appropriate to this area.
• Impacts should be minimized, and the park should continue to be an oasis of calm and beauty.
• Protection of sensitive habitat should be encouraged.
• Voluntary, education-based and community-based protection should be utilized as much as possible.

12. Any restrictive decisions should be based on sound, scientifically defensible research. The decision process should be unbiased and conducted openly with continued opportunity for community participation.

Rationale: changes that could significantly reduce the quality of life of thousands of park users need to be properly justified and balanced, and these changes need community support that can come only from a fair and open process.

13. New environmental restrictions aimed specifically at dogs alone should demonstrate that the claimed impact of dogs is factually justified as being among the critical park environmental problems requiring mitigation.

Rationale: it would not be appropriate to use anti-dog environmental restrictions as a back-door attack by people who simply dislike dogs. Environmental restrictions should be justified by environmental gains, and any restrictions should aim at the most important gains. For example, it has been proposed that people with dogs could not walk in the monarch butterfly area, without any mention of whether dogs represent a significant threat, and whether that threat is as large as other impacts, such as running and playing children. For example, dogs have been suggested as the primary cause of a possible reduction in bird populations, without any mention of the explosive growth of the surrounding urban area. And at least one biologist has suggested that dogs discourage the feral cat population (which are strong bird predators), and therefore dogs may actually support bird populations.

14. Even before further study, we would support interim restriction of access for all park users to the area immediately under the monarch shelter trees during the 3-4 month period during which they shelter in the park. This should be accomplished by posting signs explaining why people should stay out of the area during the requested winter months.
Rationale: the monarchs are a unique and endangered species and may be in decline. Pending further study it would be appropriate to move to protect the area before next winter. Since there is no evidence that dogs are any better or worse than any other visitors, all access should be controlled. The area to be protected is only a small part of the park, and the control is only necessary during a few months, so the usage impact of restrictions is modest. It is possible that further study would show that current usage does not interfere with the monarchs but that is not sufficient reason to delay.

15. The "riparian corridor" and any restrictions surrounding it should be studied prior to the institution of any restrictions, particularly since the only restrictions discussed so far have been targeted at dogs alone.

Rationale: The "riparian corridor" is a drainage swale that is fed by storm runoff from the neighborhoods north of Pelton, and proceeds approximately in a straight line through the park from Pelton to West Cliff, where it enters a sewer pipe before re-emerging at Its Beach. The drainage swale provides beneficial effects, such as a thriving grove of willows as well as support for other water-loving plants and animals. There has, however, been no credible evidence yet presented that shows how dogs in the park have any significant impact, especially in comparison to other impacts. The storm runoff flowing through will carry cat, bird, dog, rodent and sometimes human excrement from surrounding streets and areas, as well as engine oil, brake pad dust, garden fertilizers, pesticides, litter and so on. The "corridor" is therefore already environmentally degraded for reasons having nothing to do with dogs in the park. The main threat would appear to be elsewhere, and since nothing has yet been proposed to deal with the threat, no action should be taken until the real threats have been studied.

16. Study whether polluted storm drain channels should be re-routed around the park (or directed underground) in order to protect the park from the impact of surface runoff.

Rationale: See previous point.

17. Study should be initiated on the environmental impact of proposals to expand parking near the park.

18. Study should be initiated on the environmental impact of picnicking, drinking and drug use at Its Beach.

Rationale: large amounts of trash are found on the beach during the heavy use months, including food waste; plastic utensils; paper and plastic plates; paper, plastic or mylar bags; bottles; styrofoam, cans; lids and caps; and sometimes worse items such as hypodermic needles. This debris as well as the storm drain runoff noted above may represent the biggest threat to Its Beach.

19. Preservation of wildlife habitat and potential native restoration should be studied. Any such study must be directed to consider the impact of proposed measures in the context of the park's urban setting, multiple uses, and current habitat. Decisions should be supported by valid and non-biased research, realistic estimates of costs, and analysis of the impact to the park and park users of any proposed changes.

Rationale: it's important to focus effort on high-payoff environmental items, and to produce balanced decisions that can be implemented. For example, native restoration would be immensely costly, probably unsuccessful due to the proximity of surrounding housing areas containing non-native vegetation, would probably require substantial curtailment of human use of the park, and would require elimination of eucalyptus which are non-native and considered invasive. To illustrate an example of the need for balance, eucalyptus removal in particular would likely drive out the park's monarch population. To illustrate the need for valid research, there are conflicting claims about bird population changes, some claiming a decline in observed species and some claiming an increase in observed species in recent decades. Decisions will need credible research data.

20. An education program should be developed, in order to inform the public about sensitive areas and how they can help. Such programs should utilize community distribution channels. For example, FOLF has begun the formation of a Dog Docent program which would be an ideal channel. See more below.

21. Engage community support for environmental stewardship as more fully described below.

3. Community Participation

Lighthouse Field and Its Beach have benefited from a high degree of community support. The park itself was saved from planned destruction by community involvement. In recent years, the dog owners who use the park have developed into a loosely organized community who: know each other, socialize in the park in a quiet way, organize community events such as informal holiday celebrations in the park, and cherish the park and beach. With only the most informal organization, community members have organized protective actions, such as periodic park cleanup days.

The community also acts as "eyes and ears" in the park, and provides friendly and informal peer pressure and good examples. In many urban parks, there is some pressure to clear brush in order to remove hiding places for thugs, drunks, drug users, rapists and the like. Lighthouse Field remains one of the safest and cleanest parks in the city system. Back paths hidden by trees and shrubs remain safe. We believe this is because there is a constant presence of responsible community members who have been drawn to the park because they exercise their dogs, and who become members of the protective community. Most community members set good examples of cleanup and behavior, and this has a positive influence on other users.

We believe the same positive influence exists at Its Beach. Unlike the Main Beach or Natural Bridges, there are no lifeguards or other supervision. Its Beach has experienced some trouble with drinking, fighting and similar behavior. But during the 4pm to sunset off-leash hours, the beach attracts increased numbers of responsible community members. Their presence helps to maintain a calm, family-safe atmosphere at Its Beach. As a result of the debate over the preliminary concepts for the Lighthouse Field General Plan Update, the community has become more organized and active. This community is an energetic resource supporting responsible park usage and environmental stewardship. The city should engage the community as follows:

22. Utilize willing community organizations to provide education to all park users. Parks and Recreation should develop educational materials that can be provided to community members for widespread dissemination using whatever channels, mailing lists, or distribution mechanisms the groups may have. Whenever possible materials should be provided in electronic form to ease publication and rapid dissemination.

23. Cooperate to reinforce existing positive behavior. The already successful volunteer park cleanup days have Parks & Recreation support, coordinated with park cleanup crew work schedules, provision of cleanup materials, and so on. This example should be expanded to other park support programs.

24. Work with Friends of Lighthouse Field (FOLF) and any other interested groups to create a written standard of responsible behavior for dog owners wishing to use the park or beach for free dog exercise.

25. Support and utilize volunteer efforts through FOLF, the Dog Docent program, and other interested groups. FOLF already has over 200 people who have expressed interest to participate in some form of park stewardship activity. The Dog Docent program is designed to educate dog owners about park stewardship, sensitive habitats and responsible dog handling in the park and on the beach.

26. Similar to a Neighborhood Watch program, reinforce the role of responsible park users to act as "eyes and ears" regarding activities that threaten the park. Through the participating organizations, encourage members to quickly report seriously threatening behavior (e.g. fights, vandalism, presence of dangerously aggressive dogs, public drinking or drug use, etc.).

27. Provide explicit guidelines to the participating groups to ensure that they are not being asked to be an enforcement arm and to not step into areas that are properly those of city agencies.

28. Invite community donations of time or money to enhance park facilities. For example, FOLF has offered to raise the funds for the dog water fountain already approved by the City Council.

29. Create communication materials to educate park and beach users and nearby residents about the alignment of interests between all users, including those who may have no great liking for dogs. The responsible dog community supports clean parks, free from litter, excrement, aggressive dogs and aggressive people. On these points at least there should be common ground, even if there is disagreement on what should be done. Actively work to encourage positive communication, reduce conflict, and foster a win/win attitude.

30. Challenge the community to make the program a national example. By commitment and creativity, the community can show that a widespread national issue can be handled in a way that protects parks, preserves the ability for people and canine companions to successfully share public lands, and builds on the Santa Cruz tradition of active community involvement. Support the notion that we can create a model that others will follow.

4. Extension of the Plan

By setting a good example, the Lighthouse Field and Its Beach program can provide a model to replicate elsewhere in the city.

There is a severe shortage of recreational space to support a strong but often unmet public need. Responsible dog owners who wish to give their animals proper exercise, and who wish to socialize their animals to foster the best possible behavior need access to some fraction of public lands. The lack of such access creates excess pressure on the few areas that do exist and also creates pressure to bend the rules, thereby inviting conflict with other park usage, which undermines the effectives of rules as well as potentially diverting scarce enforcement resources which could be better deployed to other more productive purposes.

Usage is currently extremely unbalanced, but we propose correcting the imbalance by some additional spaces. We do not believe all parks should be opened in this way. Just as hikers and mountain bikers sometimes share trails but often prefer to be on separate trails, people who are uncomfortable with dogs should be able to have some parks free of off-leash dogs.

Since many parks already have some dog usage in contravention to existing rules, neighborhoods would likely welcome community-based stewardship to mitigate existing problems and promote a better park environment for all. A set of selection criteria would need to be developed. If an area was being considered to be opened for free dog exercise, the creation of a local area community organization should be encouraged, in order to foster community-based stewardship of the park. Education about the common ground between dog owners and non-owners would be important.

Friends of Lighthouse Field would be willing to actively assist the establishment of other community-based groups in conjunction with proposals to select certain additional parks as open to dog access.