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

Christine Linnenbach

DogPAC Questionnaire
District 7

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

   I will immediately meet with members of DOG PAC and other community and government leaders to strategize and if possible, develop strategies to help citizens reclaim the rights once held by dogs and their companions in our parks and on our beaches.

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.
   

   Yes

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?

   Yes

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

   Absolutely

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?

   Yes

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?
   

   No. Absolutely.

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?

   Yes.

   San Francisco's off-leash areas are among the few remaining places in our densely populated urban environment where dogs can socialize freely. Off-leash recreation is not only an essential part of how many people care for their pets--it is a way to give a little something back to the animals who give us all so much.

   In this case, I defer to the San Francisco SPCA, as well as DogPac and other like minded organizations which recommend that the current off-leash areas be improved, new sites be added, and that the community be involved in determining the future status of lands controlled by San Francisco's Department of Recreation as well as the National Parks.

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?

   Yes

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?

   Absolutely

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.?
    

    Absolutely.

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

    As is aptly stated, in the SFDOG newsletter, society has yet to recognize and appreciate the emotional and psychological needs of animals. I recently read that dogs, are "pack" animals and accordingly they need to socialize in order to remain psychologically healthy and that keeping dogs isolated from one another goes against a dog's most basic instincts. To this end, as Supervisor I will work to ensure and promote more areas that allow dogs to act in ways that benefit their instincts.

    Moreover, as an avid runner, I am aware of the fact that animals need to run so as to stay healthy and at a safe and acceptable weight. I agree with the San Francisco Dog Owners Group in stating that, "Dogs require daily exercise and contact with other dogs in order to remain healthy and well socialized. [A]well socialized dog learns the skills required for getting along with the people and the other dogs [he/she] meets each day".

    As one dog organization has noted, "[n]eighbors who would otherwise have little reason to speak to one another will stop and chat when dogs are present" (San Francisco Dog Owners Group, "SF DOG", Managing Off-Leash Recreation in Urban Parks, March, 1999at p. 6). This fact is an important ingredient in the formation of a community. There are countless examples of dogs introducing people to other people, thus leading to the formation of neighborhood groups, park clean-up days, new friendships, and even marriage. Dogs do so much good for the community: they give us a sense of optimism, safeguard us from depression and loneliness, and break down the barriers that isolate us from one another.

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

    Regulations of dogs should be limited to those dogs who have a documented, previous history of violence toward other animals and humans. These regulations need to be enforced on an individual basis

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?

    I am extremely troubled to learn that citizens have reported that park rangers and park police have significantly increased monitoring of the activities of dog walkers at Crissy Fort Funston and other GGNRA land. Most importantly, I have learned of accounts in which many park rangers, both on foot and in vehicles, have given dog owners/guardians warnings about off-leash dogs. These are unnecessary, and unpleasant incidents. Like many groups in the City, I am very concerned that increased enforcement could be an attempt to force dog owners/guardians out of the GGNRA before negotiations which are set to begin. This effectively deprives dog owners of leverage in the negotiations by forcing us to begin with no off-leash areas in current use.

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?

    No

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?

    No. Moreover, by its recent actions, I agree that employees of GGNRA are creating a climate of uncertainty among dog owners/guardians and unreasonably exacerbating the conflict and difficulties in resolving the off-leash issue. As Supervisor, my office and I will insist that the NPS and the GGNRA forego enforcement and planting of native pants in off-leash areas while the negotiations take place.

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?

    No.

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?

    Audit these actions and set up an independent task force with subpoena powers to question city officials regarding these arrangements.