Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Sarah Palin Calls Global Warming Studies 'Snake Oil' at NorCal Conference
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Central Subway Ground Broken
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
SFist posted last week about the lovely Huntington Park on Nob Hill, and commenter hthoms responded with an account of some pushy park rangers "abusing their power" by harassing park-goers with off-leash dogs, citing this SF Weekly article:
Unfortunately, this idyllic setting has recently witnessed an aggressive crackdown on dogs and their owners for leash violations by Sf Rec&Park Rangers. As many as 3 Park Rangers at a time are used to write a single ticket. One woman was even chased out of the park and down the street, where the Park Ranger attempted to force his way into her home as she fought to close her door.Some members of the Nob Hill Association say that someone influential in the Association and SF government has sicced the Rangers on the unfortunate dog owners.
One Park Ranger told a park visitor: "Someone high up, who is our advocate in city government, told us to go here and cite people or risk losing our jobs."
Here is a thread of several more such comments.
Has anyone else out there encountered confrontations with park rangers? Honestly, we can't blame them for doing their jobs, considering having dogs off-leash is illegal in many parks.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
this is sad but don't blame the rangers or city hall for this crack down. blame the dog owners that never picked up their shit and caused the complaints in the first place. losers!
Fuck off you stupid cunt
Brilliant, so lets spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on rangers so they can chase little Fifi out of Huntington park. Just goes to show that a few paranoid dog haters can override the most desperate budget crisis in a generation. Lay off the teachers and firefighters, but for god's sake, don't let the Pugs have any fun!
If true, this is totally unacceptable. SFist should file a FOIA request and find out who the "Someone high up, who is our advocate in city government" is and get to the bottom of this.
isn't that the guardian's job?
Abu Ghraib! Rodney King! Impeach BuchCheneyRumsfeld!
Rubbing the guardian's face in the poop followed by a sound whack with a rolled up newspaper should drive the message home that not picking up after FooFee comes with consequences.
The only problem is that there aren't enough dog owners and dogs in the park. They need to be like Critical Mass and jam the park at peak hours and push out everyone else and be really rude and cause a disturbance. Then the city will give them a police escort and never ask for a permit or cite them.
If you're a gang of lindy hoppers in the park, however, the City cracks down on you like you're Public Enemy #1. Another case of EPIC FAIL brought to you by inexperienced Supervisors, an absentee Mayor, and a bureaucracy that will cripple our economy with wasteful spending on managers and does nothing to enrich our lives.
Critical Canines!
Not enough dogs in the park? You can't be talking about any park in SF.
I hope comment 2 is meant ironically. What *I* think is unacceptable is dogs off leash where it is expressly forbidden.
I would love it if there were a crackdown in Glen Canyon. There are many signs there explicitly stating that dogs must be on leash at all times, yet the whole park is lousy with leashless dogs. People even have the nerve to bring those tennis ball scoopy lacrosse looking things and play fetch with their off leash dogs.
Send the rangers over to Glen Canyon. Those of us who would prefer to hike without being sniffed or licked - as well as those of us who are law abiding - would appreciate it!
Don't go to Glen Canyon
But I like Glen Canyon. Why should I have to stop going because other people choose to break the law there? There are several places dog owners can go and have their dogs off leash. Duboce Park, for example. Or the dog run at Kite Hill or Corona Heights. There is zero need for them to come to Glen Canyon.
Why are you so sure that your dog prefers human shit? Controlled taste-tests?
Wrong reply, n/m.
Amen. Was there this weekend and dogs were everywhere. Nothing like a big dog rushing up to a toddler, with pretentious Glen park/Noe person thinking it's funny. I think antifreeze covered steak is funny, too.
So you advocate poisoning the dogs as their owners are idiots? nice.
Yes. If they are a direct threat. Shame for the dog - it isn't their fault. But a bad-behaved dog around kids due to an idiot owner is like an drunk idiot owner bringing a loaded gun. The weapons (dog or gun) need to be taken away.
Call animal control. Please don't poison the dogs. I saw a dog react after being poisoned and it is a horrible way to die.
I'm glad you're not in my neighborhood, you're a sadistic ass. Call the police, publicly chastise the owner (anyone who doesn't control his/her dog deserves it), but poison an animal? OK, Dahmer, whatever.
Dahmer. You, sir, have the wit and reason of many of the dog owners in this city. And thusly, why we're in the position of having to defend ourselves from off-leash Rotts in GP Canyon. Fine, I won't poison them (though I have had to kick a couple), but no jury will convict me of defending a child by attacking the dog or even the owner. In fact, charges don't even get pressed. I don't care as much about dog waste, it's the threat of a dog mauling a child. That is not "something to be put up with". That is direct physical danger to a human. If can't or won't understand that, your dog gets what you deserve.
And the last time a dog mauled a child in a park here was when, exactly? No dog owner would fault you for engaging in your dreamed-of acts of heroism. Dog owners don't want crazy-ass violent dogs in the park any more than you do. They tend to bite us, and our dogs as well.
In fact, the last time I heard of a dog attacking someone in this city it was a giant violent dog with a completely stoned owner. It killed a tiny onleash dog.
It just takes one, and every year dog owners seem to get more cavalier. I don't think I've EVER seen one dog owner chewing out another, and we've all seen some pretty violent dog clashes. There are a lot more incidents than reported because owners - even those of the aggrieved dogs - feel there'd be a crackdown. Can't be a crack in the unified front. When I see one dog owner bitch out another for their dangerous dog, then I'll take you seriously.
One Park Ranger told a park visitor: "Someone high up, who is our advocate in city government, told us to go here and cite people or risk losing our jobs."
Someone please uncover and expose this "high up" city government official. Alioto-Pier? Chiu? Newsom? Fire Chief?
Hmm... why would the rangers want to give people the impression that unleashed dogs are unwelcome? I couldn't possibly because they are unwelcome! And they certainly wouldn't resort to multiple rangers at once just because people weren't getting the picture with just one!
No, clearly the answer is that "someone high up" is racist against dog owners.
Sorry for the stupid cunt post before. But there is no way any of you can possibly have a problem with dog shit. 99 times out of 100, that is human shit you're stepping in. I know this because my dog will not eat dog shit, but has an insatiable appetite for human shit. This town is full of gnarly old-duder shit. It all comes from blokes who look like Nash Bridges' dad. Or a hipster. Either way, Park Rangers are upping their profile because they're all about to be canned, and there is nowhere else to go in law enforcement for them. Been camping lately?
well said you stupid cunt!
Why are you so sure that your dog prefers human shit? Controlled taste-tests?
And another thing. If you don't have a dog, what the fuck are you doing in a park? Wanking?
Excuse me, but I am sure you cannot be serious. Am I not allowed to cave in to the desire to have something other than cement under my feet?
I am there hiking, using the park as intended.
Actually the question should be "if you have a dog, why do you live in the city to begin with?"
If your dog can't get enough exercise while being leashed, then you are living 'above your means'.
Actually the question should be "if you have a dog, why do you live in the city to begin with?"
If your dog can't get enough exercise while being leashed, then you are living 'above your means'.
Hey dick: who are you to decide who gets to go to the park? some eff-ing dog owners act like they own the joint.
well frankly, someone should lock up that crazy asian guy with the rainbow circus dogs. fucking annoying as all hell.
Now that Chiu is in office, all the anti-dog fascists have come out of the woodwork. There is a new airline dedicated to dogs, billions of dollars spent on dogs by adoring Americans, but not in SF. The haters rule here. Sad to see in the city of Saint Francis!
It takes three to write a ticket? What the hell is this? Muni's fare inspectors? I'd expect better from the rangers.
They need two to supervise.
You gotta use three rangers because there's a dog involved and the owners get really pissed. Letting your dog off lease is actually illegal in all but a few places in the city, but it's never enforced so owners figure it's cool. I'm pretty sick of off lease dogs every goddamn place, but I'm resigned to it. As for the shit on city streets? It's mostly dog shit. Get real.
Yeah, the person in that photo appears to be really uncooperative. Good thing our tax money is paying the salary of those other two cop wannabes to stand there and...watch.
Face it, they're trying to justify their existence in a time of massive budget cuts.
Expecting every dog owner in this city to come home from work, immediately get in their cars (or on public transportation, and then people would bitch about that) and take their dogs out to Golden Gate Park is simply unrealistic. About as unrealistic as expecting homeless people not to crap in doorways.
In my park, the dog owners go to the park, let their dogs run around for 30 minutes or so together, and then everyone heads back home. No one seems to have a problem with it. The people who irresponsible enough not to clean up after their dogs are few and far between, from my observances, and it's not the neighbors standing in a little group, chatting and giving their dogs a 20 minute break. It's the young homeless people with their dogs who don't even have shampoo, let alone dog bags.
People need to learn how to live and let live. If a giant dog comes up and takes a crap right in front of you/jumps on you and the owner does nothing, then yes, you have a legitimate gripe. But some people just can't seem to be happy unless they're acting like hall monitors, bitching about the slightest infraction.
Want a clean, pristine patch of grass where it's absolutely silent, there are no dogs, no kids, no neighbors, no community? It's called a backyard in a gated community. Who wants to live that way?
Taking your dog to Golden Gate Park may be unrealistic. But you know what *is* realistic? Keeping it on the leash. Your dog can get just as much exercise on the leash as off. The added benefit is that you will get some exercise too! Live and let live would be a great argument if this were just some petty complaint like whistling loudly or walking slowly. Live and let live doesn't really apply when there is a LAW involved.
A law which, I might add, is meant not just to protect us from your dogs, but it is meant for your own dog's safety as well.
"your dog can get just as much exercise on leash as off."
You clearly have never tried to keep pace with a running dog. A dog can get exercise on a leash? Of course. AS MUCH as off leash? wrong.
So clearly the solution is to break the law. Hey, I want to get to the store faster, so I am going to walk out in traffic against the light because that will get me there faster! I could wait for the walk sign, but that would take longer. So what if a bunch of cars have to come screeching to a halt. I really need my ice cream!
I saw that twice just this morning. I dealt with it.
Many parks have designated off leash areas, for exactly this purpose.
Can somebody influential in government send the poopie patrol over to 20th and Capp to ticket the drug fiends and hookers shitting in between cars and pissing all over the bumpers?
That sure would be nice.
There aren't rangers for Glen Canyon because political juice has them over staffing Huntington.
Park resources are scarce and anyone who cares about their local park should be outraged if this story is true.
SF overstaffs Nob Hill parks at the expense of other, less well-connected areas? Truly I have never been so shocked.
On a side note, another reason why there are park rangers is because cops get paid more than twice their salary, and most people would say that using a armed SFPD officer to enforce leash laws and sound permits would be a waste of resources.
Sure, they probably get a power trip by having a uniform and car with flashing lights, and a few assholes always ruin the bunch.
Do cops get shit for 'harassing' people who break laws too? Rangers are trying to do their jobs. If someone breaks the law, they should get a talking to.
The reason why there are leash laws are because not everyone is a dog lover/owner, and if you look into the larger parks like stern grove and ggp, you will see there has been numerous people who have been bit by off leash dogs.
I lived next to Duboce Park for several years (before the recent renovations). That park was absolutely ruined by dog owners. On warm days, the scent of dogshit would positively waft over the park.
I have news for you dog owners - when your dog craps on the grass - even when you pick up his or her poop, you still leave a bit of a small little mess of poop-covered grass. And that's just the conscientious ones. The less careful owners leave entire shit nuggest on the grass. Then you have the owners who take their dogs out at night for a pre-bed poop - the dogs run off-leash, take a poop in some corner of the park and the owner never finds the shit. And then you have the owners who just don't care at all.
Mutliply all the above - leftover poop from good owners, half-poops, lost night poops, careless owners, etc. - and you have a lot of shit. Going to a park like Duboce, where the entire park was taken over by off-leash dogs, meant carefully picking your way through the grass, looking careful for a square patch of grass clean of leftover or dried shit, putting your blanket down and praying you didn't miss any poop.
There is no way to avoid this if you allow dogs off-leash, no matter how "good" the respective dog owners are. Its a math thing - if you get 90% compliance, that still means 10% non-compliance. If you have say a few hundred dogs a day, that means 10-20 dog poops not cleaned up or improperly cleaned up. Multiply daily. As a complete aside, this is the same reason Reagan's Star Wars plan was never going to work. 10% of 10,000 Russian nuclear missles is still 1,000 nuclear missles.
So if you allow off-leash in a particular area, that means you are going to have dog poop on the grass. Period. Thinking otherwise is just engaging in self-rationalization and wilfull fantasy.
This is why we have off-leash and on-leash areas in our public parks, because 100% poop-cleaning compliance on grass is impossible. Non-dog owners should be able to enjoy the parks too. This doesn't mean we have an expectation of having a completely quiet, kid-free, dog-free park. I like kids. I like dogs. Let them play loudly on the jungle gym and slober on my face. (kids and dogs, respectively) That's just creating a straw-man argument. Rather, its about having a relatively SHIT FREE park.
There is a flaw in your argument, however. Even if leash laws are 100% enforced everywhere, dogs are still going to poop and pee in the park. Do you think only off leash dogs go to the bathroom?
Your comment re off leash at night is accurate however. Either way, it's a city. People are going to have dogs. Dogs are going to shit in the park, on leash or off leash. Most will clean it up, some will not.
It's just something you have to put up with, like I have to put up with screaming brats running up and grabbing my dog (on leash) while they're ignorant parents point and think it's so funny and cute. Grabbing strange dog = not cute and asking to be growled at/bitten, at which point parents will become super involved. Or like we have to put up with multiple things in this city we don't like, and I'm sure you can all name a few.
Oops, while "their" ignorant parents.
Okay, we are getting sidetracked with the poop issue here. It's not about that. It's about keeping the dog on the leash, period. If it's not permitted, don't do it. How hard is that to grasp? There isn't really a case to be made because you can't rhetoricalize yourself around breaking a law. If you want your dog to run free, go to Duboce Park or Kite Hill or Golden Gate. But don't come to a leash zone and let your dog run free. It's not something we have to "just put up with." Clearly, we don't, because the city agrees with us and is now enforcing this law. Get used to it.
If taking your dog to a dog run is too much trouble, you are probably not the kind of person who should have gotten a dog.
I think that they ARE tied together. I had a roomate with a dog. I would walk the dog for said roomate all the time. And what I saw, both for myself and of other dog owners was this: when you are in a park with a dog off-leash, its 10 times as hard to control where the dog shits. In fact, from what I say, the dogs seemed to particularly enjoy bolting once off-leash to go find some fresh area to shit in.
This would be followed by said dog owners hunting around looking for the brown log. Which they didn't always find and would usually justify with "well, *I'm* a good owner, I pick up after my dog. Just this once is ok." Multiply by the daily dog usage of the park.
The other phenomena I have observed is that parks with off-leash usage ATTRACT dog-owners. So by allowing off-leash at Huntington Park you are going to get MORE dogs in the park. Which means more pooping - again, which poop will not be 100% cleaned up or even close to it.
Finally, I've also seen what happens when owners are required to keep their dogs on leash. When that happens, they tend to keep the dogs on the sidewalks/walkways or near the edges of the grass for allowing the dogs to relieve themselves - which results in cleaner parks.
Again, I lived near Duboce Park for several years. Off-leash has destroyed that park for non dog-owners. Why do you think there were such vicious fights between dog-owners and non-dog-owners around the re-design of the park.
"It's just something you have to put up with, like I have to put up with [barking fleabags] running up and [jumping on] my [kid] while [their] ignorant [owners] point and think it's so funny and cute. [Jumping on kid]= not cute and asking to be [kicked and/or muzzled after police called], at which point [owners] will become super involved. Or like we have to put up with multiple things in this city we don't like, [like self-entitled dog owners that hate children]."
Of course, I'm sure your precious little bag of fleas would *never* jump on a person unprovoked. Because you're perfect, as is your dog.
We really should consider Doghatersville for a name. No one ever considers positive solutions such as a larger gardening staff to pick up the stray poops or reseed the grass. Or even a public campaign to encourage city residents to choose small dogs, which are better suited to city life. No, its just spend millions more to hire rangers to harass dog owners and cook the little buggers for dinner. Saint Francis would be appalled.
Wait. o.O;
You just seriously compared dog poo to nuclear missiles.
...kay.
OK, slighly excessive illustrative example. But I wasn't comparing poop to missles, even if they are the same shape.
Rather, it was illustrative of the idea that the percentage of compliance with a given rule is not the only factor in the analysis of a given public policy. Another factor is volume. If something is going to happen many many many times, then even high levels of compliance can still allow the negative consequences. Likewise, if something happens infrequently, then even low levels of compliance might mitigate events enought to warrant it.
They are doing it because their department is broke! Duh. Same with the ABC.
I am a Huntington Dog Park owner. The story is true. The rangers were given orders directly from Supervisor Chiu, there is your higher up. The reason is because someone in the Nob Hill Association threatened to sue the city if something was not done about the off-leash dogs. There is one ranger in particular who has been extremely unprofessional at her job. She calls people names and also nearly hit a dog-owner with her car in the crosswalk as she was parking illegally in the crosswalk and against traffic.
For all of the negative comments that are being made, you are entitled to them. However those people making those comments are not very informed on the area itself or the park. I am not looking for backlash and I am not going to publicly fight with anyone on this issue. What I am going to tell you is that the dog owners at this park have banded together and are fighting for designated off-leash hours. There are petitions to sign at the pet stores in the Nob Hill neighborhood. We are just looking for 6-9pm, three hours out of every precious day. This is a great compromise from all parties and please remember that having dog owners present in the evening help keep the park and the neighborhood safe.
Parks are intended for multi-use; off-leash play with dogs are a part of this multi-use. We can all get along. The people who have unruly dogs should not be letting them off leash. This takes all of the other dog owners to self-police, which is what happens at Huntington Park. All of the locals are very responsible and self police each other. It works. The problems that are happening at the park are with people who come on holidays and on the weekend who do not ever come to the park. They bring their unruly dogs, let them run around and disturb all of the people trying to enjoy the park. The local dog owners do not do this on those days, we typically avoid those days. The local dog owners pick up the stray dog poop when we see it in order to help the park stay clean. The local dog owners pick up the stray garbage that the non-dog owners leave behind when using the park. The local dog owners are essential to keep at the park.
One woman had her crippled chihuahua off-leash on the sidewalk next to the park for a few minutes and was verbally harassed and yelled at by one of the rangers to put her dog on leash. This is an owner who is extremely diligent in keeping her dog on-leash. Her crippled two-pound chihuahua is not going to wreck havoc on people, it can barely walk. One owner was physically grabbed by a ranger, which actually wasn't legal, and then held by the two other rangers while the third called the cops. One woman was holding her leash, law abiding, her dog jerked and she lost control of her dog for less than a minute. She got a ticket. A woman was sitting on the outside rim of the park, her small dog was sitting obediently next to her without a leash, she got a ticket. Meanwhile there are Art Academy students and underage kids drinking beer and smoking weed, the rangers pay no mind to them. None of the other rules of the park are being enforced such as smoking cigarettes, littering, etc..
It is unfair to say that if the owners are unable to take their dogs to the designated off-leash parks in San Francisco then they shouldn't be owning them at all. All of the designated off-leash parks are a major trek from Nob Hill and the Financial District, both are areas that owning a car is not feasible, and most people cannot get to those off-leash parks without a car. So instead the situation is making the people like me, who made a very environmentally conscious decision to not own a car, feel like we are being punished for doing so. Our dogs cannot get enough exercise on-leash. So please understand that what is happening at Huntington Park is over and beyond normal law enforcement. If interested in helping out our cause please seek out the petitions at the pet stores in our neighborhood.
as a dog owner I sympathize with your plight, but I don't see that you have a case.
One of your decisions (living in nob hill) has meant that you are deprived some conveniences (living near an off-leash dog park) but given others. That's a choice you made - people make that kind decision of time, and don't expect the City to accommodate them.
but good luck, I hope you guys succeed in getting some off-leash hours, but don't act like you're entitled to them.
"We are just looking for 6-9pm, three hours out of every precious day."
Hours that happen to be prime park use hours for anyone who works 9 - 5. Every day? Wow, that is really self-centered. Twice a week, max, I would say is fair.
"Parks are intended for multi-use; off-leash play with dogs are a part of this multi-use."
So is dogs on-leash. No one is saying that dog owners shouldn't be in parks. Just please keep your dog on the leash, thanks.
"All of the designated off-leash parks are a major trek from Nob Hill and the Financial District."
Duboce Park is not even a 30 minute walk from the Financial District.
"So please understand that what is happening at Huntington Park is over and beyond normal law enforcement."
No, it's not. What is happening at Huntington Park, and Glen Canyon, and many other parks is over and above normal law abidance.
P.S. I knew there was a reason I loved David Chiu besides just his good looks! Yeah, David!
"please remember that having dog owners present in the evening help keep the park and the neighborhood safe."
That's why we welcome you there, with leash. Please do keep walking your dog in the park. With leash. This isn't rocket science.
Here, here. Moreover - I don't need off-leash dogs to keep Nob Hill safe. Its the top of Nob Freaking Hill. What, the presence of the Mark Hopkins and Fairmont hotels and Grace Cathedral not enough for you? Jeebus.
And yes, the request for 6-9 every day just shows that these folks are completely self-centered.
Also, Lafayette Park at Sacramento and Laguna is a legal off-leash dog park, which is just under a mile from Huntington Park. Yes, there are some big hills between the two, but it's certainly doable for the able-bodied and would wear your dog out even more.
Thanks for the heads up though. I live in Nob Hill and know David Chiu and worked on his campaign. I will be sure to organize a counter-petition now and show up at whatever BOS meetings there are about this issue.
Dog owners are trying to compromise but the haters are fascists, just like Chiu. Call in the Gestapo on little Fifi and spend tens of thousands to make people on Nob Hill miserable! If Chiu wants to ever be elected in this town again, he had better wake up and stop acting like Caligula.
Wow, it took longer than I expected for Godwin's Law to kick in on this one. Good job, everyone but "Opera".
What's going on here, self-righteous person?
6-9? Really? When people get home from work and want to chill or play with their families. Dogs are more important than that? And I love the faux-enviro "but I don't own a car" argument. So the erosion that the dog causes running on hills, or dunes, or in planted areas, is okay? The disturbing birds or other wildlife. That's cool, right?
You have huge expanses to run dogs in Funston, Bernal, McLauren - legally. You don't have a car? Your choice, but deal with the consequences. You pimp yourself for doing the right thing, but then you don't want to sacrifice for your martyrdom. TS.
I'm not a huge Chiu fan, but he's dead-on here. Like said to my right honourable colleague bluecanary, it just takes one.
Actually, 9 months out of the year it is dark by 6pm, and nobody but a few freezing dog owners are using the park. Dog haters are such a sanctimonious bunch, and tend to exaggerate. It is a reasonable proposal for law abiding dog loving citizens caught in an impossible situation. They are refused access to use their own park and are instead expected to trek halfway across town just for their little dogs to play for a few minutes. If no compromise is reached, civil disobedience will be the only option.
I sure wish I had an opinion about this since it's been one of the more entertaining threads in a while.
What's going on here, dude without opinion?
The problem isn't dogs off-leash in parks (though it does amaze me how often people will do this even in areas that are not designated... not that I have a problem with it) it's people that refuse to have their dogs on a leash while walking along the street. Never before in my life have I seen so many people who seem to think that their dog running around on its own is entirely normal. True, I've also seen some astoundingly well-behaved dogs that will sit and wait to cross the street until told to even when their owner is on the other side, but that's ignoring the point. It's entirely unsafe for the dog and it does betray a certain degree of self-involvement. The thing is, especially in the city, the dogs should really be on a leash if they're just going down the street with you. Not just for control, but for the dog's own safety. More off-leash areas in parks? I'm all for it. A safe place for dogs to play should certainly be present in every city park able to support one, but if you're on the sidewalk you really ought to have your dog on a leash.
here here! my father and I were driving down church behind dolores park once, and were proceeding through the 19th and church intersection when from the overpass from the park darts a little dog off leash into the street, her 40 something owner running right behind IN FRONT OF A MOVING CAR. my father slammed on the breaks and luckily the dog wasn't hurt, but i remember the woman screaming "i will sue your ass if you harm a hair on my baby's head!"
while I KNOW she was in the wrong the reality is that that suit could have actually occured, and even if we would have won it would have been money to fight it.
If you aren't homeless, or ride a bike, or have a dog... you are invisible in this city. Honestly there is nobody that San Francisco cares less for than me =)
I have no agenda or PAC. Bummer.
I'm so glad to hear that this city has finally solved the homeless shitting around issue that we can focus on dogs.
Keeping dogs on leash all the time is cruel to dogs because they need to excercise and play. Animal cruelty should not be the official policy of this city. All of you anti-dog people need to stop exposing yourselves as sadists who like to torture poor innocent animals. The city of Saint Francis ought to do better than this. Anti-dog people have outdated views on how to manage animals because a dog allowed off leash is better integrated socially and therefore less of a threat to kids and adults- even the jerks who post here. Most of you who want leash law enforcement are unhappy in your own lives and just want some dog to kick. Shame on you! Change the leash laws!
Owning a dog at all is cruel. They are free beings who deserve to have their right of self-determination recognized*. And this town does *nothing* that Francisco would have approved of; viz, the homeless.
(*Yes, I do actually believe this)
meet you in neverland, katyg
An off leash dog is a happy dog! Confucious says muzzle the pit bulls and decriminalize the rest!
So...Opera,
Do you have any 2-legged friends?
So....Hillary,
Do you have any friends at all?
I'll have you know that I have 7,342 fellow anti-dog comrades working to make sure that the likes of you and your disgusting, four-legged, drooling, shit-machines are rounded up and incarcerated immediately.
So, yes.
And as far as your man, Confucius goes...you do realize that dog meat has long been thought by some in China to have medicinal properties, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat#China
Cheers & keep your buddy on a leash.
Thanks!
Mmmm, could use me some bosintang about right now!
No ideas, just threats to kill my dog? How surprising!
In America, dogs are a member of our families. We do not eat them. If you try and do that you will be arrested and put in jail. That guy in florida who killed the pet cats is looking at some serious time in jail. If he was an illegal immigrant, he would be deported back to China with his dog recepies. You people who threaten or encourage killing dogs are engaging in criminal behavior, and deserve what you get. Anti-dog people have a criminal mentality and it shows in your posts.
Hey, Hil and I are totally frenemies!
*fist bump*
/says something nice about Palo Alto
Go back to China and take your scurvy recepies with you!
Aawwwww, love you too, man!
You know, pitbulls are generally friendlier and more well behaved than those little yappy, ankle biting Chihuahuas. And I don't even like or trust pitbulls - I'm a Black Labrador guy.
Next one of you Chihuahua owners who lets your snippy little bitch get close to my leg is going to get the "Adam Vinatieri Special" for little Fifi Purse Dog Hilton and you can pick up your punted 8 lb piece of pet just about 50 yards away.
I've got a pretty good kicking leg and fed up with these little, annoying pieces of shit.
Which is exactly why pit bulls should always have a muzzle. They were bred for fighting, not companionship. They have no business acting out the fantasies of deranged people such as yourself, Robin.
That's not Robin - but I'll defer to him to explain that to you.
So, you come here and try to pass yourself off as some wonderful dog-lover...when in actuality you are a filthy, lowdown, BREEDIST.
You don't love all dogs, you just love YOUR dog.
I am filled with contempt for your shallow soul.
Wrong, I am simply educated enough about dogs to know there is one breed who will never be suited for off leash in public areas. I love them, but children come first. It is called being responsible, it is not about hate, which is all you spout.
Sure, Opera. You're not fooling anyone, let me assure you. In the 70's you rallied against the fine German Shepherd, in the 80's you campaigned against the regal Doberman, and now the poor misunderstood Pitbull is the unfortunate target of your hideous and vile hatred.
Frankly I hope you and your kind disappear before we learn what poor breed will be in your sights come 2010.
You are disgusting.
First you want to eat dogs, Hillary, now you dipute that pitbulls kill all the time. interesting, but not making much sense.
I'm starting to think you might not be smart enough to own a pet, Opera.
1. I don't eat meat, much less dogmeat. Just giving you historical perspective since your Confucius "quote" was such a double-helping of FAIL.
2. There is plenty of evidence that shows that Pitbulls, when cared and nurtured in a proper loving environment can be perfectly peaceful and gentle creatures. Not the BEASTS that you and your hateful Breedists would have us believe.
Good Lord, you are ridiculous.
And i am starting to think you might not be smart enough to own a computer, Hillary.
Good to know that anti-dog folk such as yourselves trip over your own shoelaces.
We'll agree to disagree then.
Please keep your g'd mutt on a leash.
Thanks!
In 2008, pit bulls were responsible for 100% of all off-property fatal dog attacks in the US. That is why i am calling for pit bulls to be kept on a leash in the city parks.
Read the first page of the Denver law that bans pit bulls from the city, Robinsf.
http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/co-denver-pit-bull-ordinance-1989.pdf
Does'nt look like pit bulls are so friendly any more does it? If SF valued children, we would do the same, but unfortunately, not.
An off leash dog is a happy dog! Dogs are a billion dollar business and the city of Saint Francis should realize that tourists love happy dogs. In fact, some pay big bucks to stay in the Fairmont and they want to let their dog play off leash for a few minutes at Huntington Park. Tenants pay landlords over $1000 extra in a flat market to have a dog. SF could do well for itself by being more dog friendly rather than listening to all the haters. Wake up Chiu!
Wow, you SFers are even more self-absorbed than I thought. Keep your dog on an effing leash, go to a dog park, or...hey, admit that your lifestyle does not fit owning a dog. It's not rocket science.
Well, maybe you are at fault for having a dog in an area where you cant take care of him. you must have known the situation when you moved there/got the dog. Dont make ypur selfishness other people's problems.
The problem mr. rocket science, is that it is cruel to dogs not to let them play offleash sometimes, or just to let them have a nap in the sun. I live a half block from my park, and you are going to tell me to go across town when i am disabled? If it is so easy, why dont you just go to another park then? All parks should have some off leash hours for our four legged friends to be happy and healthy.
This wasn't the first time these Rec&Park Rangers abused their authority and the public trust. Here's a new article at the SF Examiner:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Lack-of-oversight-of-SF-park-patrol-raises-questions-50906812.html
Next they want guns so they can shoot dog owners and then force the city to pay millions in legal settlements for the injuries. Much cheaper just to have oversight and no guns so the disaster that is the Park rangers can be minimized.
This wasn't the first time these Rec&Park Rangers abused their authority and the public trust. Here's a new article at the SF Examiner:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Lack-of-oversight-of-SF-park-patrol-raises-questions-50906812.html