What's New?

What's Going On Now? 

Elections

Election 2004 

Make a Difference

Contribute to DogPAC 

Other Sites

San Francisco DOG 
Fort Funston Dog Walkers 
Ocean Beach DOG 

Email us at:

dogpac@hotmail.com

Lisa Feldstein

DogPAC Questionnaire
District 5

1. What have you done on behalf of the dog owning community and what will you do in the future?
   

   I support expansion of off leash recreation in city parks and dramatic improvement of existing designated off leash areas. I support allowing off leash use in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. As District 5's Supervisor, I will support these goals and insist that dog guardians be included in park management decisions.

2. The only real oversight mechanism the Board of Supervisors has with regard to the operating departments is the power of the purse: that is, the Board must approve the budget. Would you be prepared to withhold portions of a Department's budget if the Department was managing the money poorly, reporting to the Board inadequately, or failing to develop reasonable public consensus? Please describe.
   

   I have broad experience working in many aspect of city government and am confident that I can achieve results for the dog community without resorting to threats. But putting conditions upon or even withholding a Department's funding are always options as a last resort.

3. Currently, the Recreation and Park Department has 10-15% of the city's playing fields locked up and chained shut. RPD is in the process of claiming hundreds of acres of parkland as natural habitat areas where public access will be very restricted if allowed at all. Critics have said that the goal of the Rec & Park Department is Parks without People. Will you work to promote public access to public parkland? How?

   I support including all interested parties in park management decisions, from the very beginning, in an open and meaningful way. Through the public hearing process, the Board of Supervisors has the power to expose and bring to light administrative abuses. I would not hesitate to use that power when necessary.

4. Will you work to promote tolerant, multi-purpose, shared-use of parks? How?

   All interested persons and groups must be included when park management decisions are made. Neighborhood meetings must be required, so that citywide interest groups do not have more say than neighborhood residents.

5. Most of us believe that it is reasonable to regulate certain incompatible uses of public spaces. For example, most of us would agree that horses should not be allowed on the golf course and dogs should not be allowed in children's playgrounds. Would you feel differently if you discovered that the dogs in a children's playground belonged to the parents and their kids?

   I believe that an effort to change the longstanding rules against dogs in fenced children's play structure areas would be divisive and unsuccessful. As a Supervisor, I will work with the dog community realize more readily achievable goals

6. Do you think the Recreation and Park Department provides adequate public process for park policies? Would you be willing to intervene in Rec/Park business if there were inadequate public process?
   

   It is hard to generalize regarding the public process that the Recreation and Park Department uses, because the services it provides are so broad, and some are not controversial. I strongly support neighborhood participation and transparent, open process whenever controversial park management decisions are made.

7. Have you ever visited on or more of the original 19 dog exercise areas approved by the RPD over 20 years ago? Which ones? How would you characterize the conditions you saw?

   I have visited many of these parks, and almost all are inadequate. A very few, such as Bernal Hill, are a model for how off leash parks can function as attractive facilities. The condition of the off leash parks is part of a larger crisis of deferred maintenance of city park facilities that I will work to address immediately as a Supervisor.

8. Statistics show that children are more likely to grow up with a family dog than with both parents; that dog owner/guardians have lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels; and that elderly pet owner/guardians are more active and less depressed. Do you believe that dogs play an important role in society? What is your personal experience with dogs in your life - now or in the past?

   Most San Franciscans believe, as I do, that dogs bring great joy to the lives of their companion guardians and others who encounter them in the larger community. Dog guardianship is a positive social force that strengthens and enhances the entire community.

9. San Francisco's dog population is estimated by the Dept. of Animal Care and Control to be between 100,000 and 120,000. Roughly 25% of the city's households includes a dog. Many dog owner/guardians are single and/or elderly, and recreation with their dog is their primary or sole form of socialization, recreation and exercise. Do you believe that off-leash recreation can be viewed as a benefit for people - not just for their dogs?

   Off leash recreation is not merely a legitimate use of city parks. It is, based upon demonstrated and obvious demand, one of the highest priorities for the city park system. It is also legitimate for the city to devote resources to the needs of dogs (and other animals, for that matter) without regard to whether people directly benefit from doing what is best for the animals.

10. Do you believe that walking a dog off-leash is a valid form of recreation on a par with picnicking, Frisbee, hiking, bird watching, soccer, etc.?
    

    Based upon demonstrated and obvious demand, off leash recreation is one of the highest priorities for the city park system.

11. What positive things do you see about off-leash recreation in our parks?

    Off leash recreation builds vital human communities. By coming together in neighborhood parks, dog guardians form lasting bonds with their neighbors and develop a sense of place and home that is a vital part of a successful urban experience. Our society provides too few opportunities for this sort of community building, and where it does exist, it should be enthusiastically supported by city government.

12. Do you believe that public authorities should make regulations to accommodate people who are afraid of dogs?

    Fear of dogs alone is not a legitimate basis for determining park policy.

13. Some people have fears, phobias, and dislikes of other people in our society. Gays, African-Americans, Asian Americans, dog owners, and teenagers are some targets of such fears. Is it appropriate to restrict the access to public places of such groups simply because some people are afraid of them or dislike their behavior in public?

    No

14. If you answered questions 12 and 13 differently, please explain.

    N/A

15. Most people agree that there is too much rudeness in public these days, which sometimes escalates into violence, such as "road rage". There is certainly more rudeness than we would like in our public parks these days between joggers, bicyclists, dog owners, parents, etc. Conflict and rudeness may occur when people share limited park resources. What is the appropriate response by public agencies to individual conflict or reported "rudeness" in parks?

    There is never any excuse for violence toward dogs or their guardians. Rude interactions can be lessened by the city making reasonable, enforceable rules, and then actually enforcing those rules. When expectations about the use of space are clear, the potential for rude behavior decreases.

16. San Francisco's dog bite rate is about 40% of the national average - and most bites occur in or around the home - not in public spaces. Many, many more children are injured in sports and playground accidents than by the family or neighborhood dog. Sergeant Herndon of the SFPD "Doggy Court" attributes SF's low bite rate to increasingly responsible dog owners who socialize and exercise their dogs off-leash. Is this a surprise to you? Does it change your concept of the value of adequate off-leash areas for everyone, not just dog owners and their dogs?

    It is not a surprise to me that the great majority of San Francisco dog guardians behave responsibly. Anyone who has spent a lot of time in the parks, as I have, knows this to be true.

17. Through its Natural Areas Program, the Rec/park Department is spending thousands of dollars cutting down healthy Eucalyptus trees because they are not native. At the same time, through its Construction Program, Rec/Park is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (almost $200,000 in Holly Park alone) to purchase and plant Canary Island palm trees. Does this make any sense to you?

    Decisions regarding landscaping in city facilities should not be made without the participation of the immediate neighbors. I think the Natural Areas Program can and must be managed in a manner consistent with the needs of all city residents, including dog guardians.

18. A book-length study conducted and published by the Urban Land Institute shows that the San Francisco Rec/Park Department is among the 3 best-funded big-city Rec/Park Departments in the country. Nonetheless, even in strained economic times such as these, when city heath and other services are being cut, the Board of Supervisors added $1 million to Rec/Park's budget. Do you think this is good government?

    I am not familiar with this study, but the Recreation and Park Department is underfunded. This underfunding is evidenced by the poor condition of most city parks. If more parks were perceived as clean and safe, there would be less competition for the relatively few parks that are considered attractive. Properly funded, properly managed parks are in the best interest of all San Franciscans.

19. Supervisors are particularly susceptible to what looks like bribery by city agencies. If a city agency offers to build or acquire a new park or renovate an old one, or to change a street-cleaning schedule in a Supervisor's district, in return for loyal support of the agency, many Supervisors go for the deal. How do you think we can curtail this kind of bribery?

    I would never be beholden to any city employee who provides necessary services to District 5. Providing those services is what those people are paid to do.