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

Ross Mirkarimi

DogPAC Questionnaire
District 5

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

   As someone who has grown up with dogs and who currently has a dog, named Ralphie ( we rescued him from the Sacramento shelter), I have dovetailed my community activism with the promotion of giving dog owners and dogs, their space to enjoy San Francisco. I haven't been attached to any formal organization but I have been a strong advocate through my own advocacy work in changing habits and perceptions toward dog owners. With this mindset I shall be a dog-loving advocate in City Hall. And based on my experience in building uncommon coalitions I will be useful in helping navigate the impasses that exists between dog owners and other communities who have differing aims.

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.
   

   Absolutely. There are too many structural inefficiencies with how budget is deliberated upon and how earmarked allocations are enforced. I am a strong believer that the budget cycle needs public input more than 30 days in advance of the Charter required deadline. Even if the mayor still unveils his budget only weeks before the window closes, the BoS president or the Chair of the Finance Committee, has the discretion to move public interface and community hearings months earlier than when the draft budget is submitted. This approach, which was once practiced but has been forgotten, allows the public and government to scrutinize how departments are managing current resources, which provides a barometer for prospective fiscal needs. It's impossible for the public to wrap their minds around the current budget process if the budget cycle inherently promotes almost 95% approval by the time the BoS unwraps the mayor's draft 30 days in advance of deadline.

   The DAC (Dog Action Committee) should be concerned about current methods to our budget deliberative process, and yet, be hopeful that we can retool the process while creating compliance oversight measures that guarantee

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'm a long time environmentalist and dog owner who is familiar with those forces who would want "parks without people," and I can tell you, that the same concerns and fears that we have of them, they have of us. One approach to remedying Rec & Park deficiencies is to protect Rec & Park - they've become the whipping post for City Hall...no other department has suffered more fiscal cuts over the last five years. I know the park and open space advocates well and I believe that if a solid effort is made in upgrading the protection of Rec & Park's budget, then they'll feel compelled to navigate diplomatically around the needs and desires of dog owners. I'm also not a fan of public golf courses in San Francisco and would be happy to discuss ways to annex land that both NPC and Dog Owners would desire -- although politically charged.

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

   Yes. By looking into the options other than "single" use which segregate park users. Some options would be multi-use, timed-usage, and pursue aspects of the "Pro Leland Yee dog policy paper".

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. it's exhausting trying to convince someone that my dog is friendly when they're terrified of dogs. It's an argument you can't win. It is quite probable that people who are phobic of dogs aren't going to overcome their fears about dogs at the playground and the particular scenario described in this question may very well exacerbate the problem. It would at the very least cause a huge conflict. Dog owner's hate it when they feel their form of recreation is threatened . People who are phobic of dogs would feel the same way if they knew they were sharing not only the same space with dogs, but the situation becomes problematic when the area is penned.

   Under the spirit of cooperation and getting along with others, I would have a problem with the dogs actually being in the same physical space--if we're talking about the current fenced-in children's play areas. I'm more than okay with dogs being tied up outside of these areas while their families enjoy the playground. This scenario would be ideal if both parties were respectful. It becomes problematic when people become angry and rude--see #15. A dog owner can be separated from their dog visually while their children are enjoying a playground. If the dog has separation anxiety, it could provide a good opportunity to work on correcting his or her behavior. I think addressing someone's phobia about dogs should be strictly voluntary and done under more controlled environment and not forced upon someone.

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?
   

   Yes. The current process that includes the community based meetings up through R&P's planning commission seems to work fine. The problem comes in when the previously approved DPA is brought before the R&P commissioners. Instead of adopting/accepting the findings of the previous commissions, they simply take it under advisement and, in most cases, simply do what they want. Historically, this has been to the disadvantage of dog owners, in spite of the dog guardians being the vocal majority.

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. Buena Vista Park and Dolores Park. The influence of dog forces then were not a presence and to come to think of it, "designated" areas were not as commonplace in perception as is now; also the amenities were paltry compared to now, as well as the organized outlook of dog-friendly groups who would care for the 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?

   As previously stated, dogs have been with me all my life. The premise of your question supports the very same sentiment I share.

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. In my case it has gotten me out of the house--exercise. Improved my mental state of mind--seasonal affective disorder (depression) it has provided me with a broad social base--lawyers, magazine publishers, doctors, graphic designers, bike messengers and others. All of whom have enriched my life in one way or another. It really brings together all walks of life that normally wouldn't meet in a social environment. it breaks down a lot of social barriers, making a much more rich and diversified community.

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. I believe it's on par with any activity one would normally do with their family.

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

    The most visible and immediate benefit is that parks generally are much safer where dog recreation has been introduced. Dog owner's invest in their parks because they are often times there more than once per day, 7 days a week, rain or shine. And while it can't be said for every park, the following is certainly true for Alamo Square: dog owners pick up trash and/or extra poop on their own, or in monthly sponsored clean-ups; monitor suspicious behavior, monitor themselves by corrective behavior, conduct education/training classes periodically. This is all positive and only benefits our reputation.

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

    No. I think that it is a public servant's duty to listen to its constituency and attempt real solutions. To accommodate a small vocal group of people is not what being a public servant is about. There may always be a group who isn't happy with a solution that works for 75%-80% of the people. This ceases to become a democracy if you're going to start regulating the activities of people based on the opinions of a few.

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, if I'm reading this correctly, the problem of behavior and fear might need to be looked at as separate issues. A person's fear need not dictate their behavior. In the past, I've experienced hysterical reactions from people while walking my dog. Not just hysteria but hysteria mixed with anger, The anti-dog people are crying wolf constantly The picture they are portraying is that of packs of wild dogs roaming uncontrolled throughout our parks viciously attacking people at random. This simply isn't true. On the other hand, I've known people whose dogs misbehave constantly by jumping on people, displaying "aggressive" behavior to people and other dogs and don't correct them no matter what. I think the underlying solution may be to a) get people to take personal responsibility by becoming aware of what is appropriate behavior and, b) to get these 2 groups of people to dialogue in a civil manner.

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?

    The problem isn't geographic. I think I touched a little on this in the previous question. People need to be aware that they're not the only ones utilizing a space. "It takes a village" so to speak. the "rudeness" is simply the manifestation of an underlying problem. Because we can't regulate or dictate someone else's behavior, it's critical to always be mindful of how I respond. as a dog guardian, I feel that it is my duty to point out corrective behavior or responses to my fellow dog guardians who may be jeopardizing the reputation of my dog group, which ultimately can have negative impact on my dpa. I even encourage calling the police if a fellow dog guardian is so inappropriate as to jeopardize the health and safety of other dogs and their owners.

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. We have a vibrant, well-informed "canine-culture" (if you will) in San Francisco. Countless times I've been told at the park by tourists that "this would never happen back home in Iowa", or "you mean they all get along up here"? While the concept of off-leash areas is of value, I think it is intrinsically tied to ongoing education/socialization and training of our dog guardians. In my opinion, off-leash recreation without on-going education/socialization is simply counterproductive and doesn't address the responsibility of dog guardians and ultimately the behavior of their dogs.

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. We need to keep and promote our green parrot culture. We have at least 10 at Alamo and even more at Dolores. I know they like the Eucalyptus trees. Besides, when you assess the objectives of Park advocates, the cutting down of trees is counter-intuitive to the need and goal of expanding tree planting.

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?

    This question is front-loaded. Rec/Park is known to be well endowed but also known to be the most pillaged...as stated before, Rec/Park funding needs to be protected and allocation of funds need to be better managed as evidenced of an independent audit. I would not support cuts to health care to fund Rec/Park...that doesn't make sense.

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?

    The way to deter any unsavory proclivities and methods of fiscal seduction is to delineate a better line-item budget process that is district focused rather than the current method of processing approval for a budget city-wide -- district focused budgets or key parts of, are invariably are more transparent..also, know this...I can't be bought. Good leaders set examples, and if necessary, use the bully pulpit to shame those leaders (supervisors) who succumb to temptation.