first mate

Kiera, for goodness sakes. Why should owners with their dog on a lead not also enjoy the ornamental gardens? To be frank and to echo other posters I have over the years seen far more damage at the hands of humans than any dogs - who can forget the arson attacks on trees or the bowling house, what about the regular graffitti episodes on the Japanese Summerhouse, what about the kids who like to tear branches off trees for games, and yes, I have actually seen that both in the Sexby Gardens and by the pond area in the Japanese Garden. Seriously Kiera objecting to a dog off lead in those areas is fair but on lead and under control...really?

Renata, When you say the 'future of the park' does this mean the whole of the park or just the areas that currently house the changing facilities, playground and one o'clock club. I have seen one poster and was left wondering what the term 'future of the park' meant....it feels a little vague and all encompassing.

Lord help us, if true.

Will that be alongside a community medical centre or is the medical side now to be scrapped? A site of this size has to offer something for all of the community not just one section. Fully appreciate we need more schools but we also need more healthcare especially for the elderly.

Thank you Milk for clarifying.

James, Funny I remember differently. I thought you had chosen to champion some residents on Derwent Grove who were pro CPZ. Zenoria did a u turn from being pro to against because they realized CPZ was unlikely to achieve what they had hoped. Seem to recall the consultation came out very much against CPZ overall- it wasn't just a feeling.

James, just for the record, were there actually whole streets that supported CPZ unanimously? I recall there being numbers of individuals on various streets in favour but overall the majority of consultees in ED were against. I also recall that many on one street were initially in favour but then did a rather spectacular u turn. If I have this wrong I stand corrected and please do say which street/s were unanimously in favour.

I'm sure that if Councillors were minded it would be possible to place conditions re car ownership/parking on new developments, however some are so rabidly in favour of CPZ that it is slotted in as a condition of this or that at every available opportunity.

Well for three years anyhow James, eh ;) Can't help but think you have a long game in mind with regard to CPZ. Pack em in tight and wait.

Penguin68, take your point, by Council I meant Southwark Council Planning Dept- but agree, would have helped if I had clarified. No smear of councillors intended, though would imagine they might be interested to know that residents who will be affected by this development have received no notification at all.

KK, Think consultation has been extended by a day- so last day tomorrow. It turns out that many residents in Chesterfield have not received a letter from the council and so were oblivious to the most recent application. Overall this does not look reflect well on the Council.

There is a path around the perimeter edge of Dulwich Park but not the track that goes through it. For many reasons the central track is popular with all park users, the wooded path area that runs parallel to it is also used by pedestrians and cyclists alike. In other parks, like PR, paths into the park are non existant, there is only track. Bawdy Nan,I believe that in Dulwich Park dogs should be kept on a lead on the track. My sympathies are with you in this case, you were showing awareness of your surroundings and the other park user should have done the same. I guess we have all had some near misses. That said I think most of us rub along well and the park is generally a happy place to be.

Mako, it is your assumption that dog owners will only ever need or want to walk on grass, there could be various reasons why the dog owner prefers to stay off grass and walk on a hard surface. I believe that it is reasonable for dog owners to keep dogs on a lead on the track area. I also think it is reasonable for cyclists to adhere to park speed limits and to slow down if other users of the track ( mums and buggies, elderly and disabled, children, joggers, roller skaters, dog walkers etc..) are in clear view. I think this shows consideration on both sides, I don't understand what it is about this that irks you so. Anyhow, I really will sit on my hands after this as we risk going on and on........

Mako, you are missing the point- according to the byelaws dog owners have as much right to use the track, provided their dog is on lead, as any other park user. The question of 'need'as you put it is subjective. I would imagine that children on roller skates and mums pushing buggies may also feel threatened by cyclists speeding excessively..I am sure that feeling is not unique to dog owners. Unless you are suggesting that cyclists give other park users a wider berth? Anyway, we will not agree on this point and I see little to be gained by continuing. Vanessa PMR- I think dog nappies are an utterly bizarre idea, but I feel sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

Mako, areas of the park to which dog owners can have access with dogs on lead would be inaccessible without some use of the track, so your point does not stand. Perhaps you are confusing areas of access off lead and areas of access on lead? Dog owners may use the track with dogs on lead,anywhere, any time, they have as much right to be there as any other park user. On a personal note, I have been startled a number of times on the track by cyclists approaching very close from behind, at speed and without any warning, when my dog has been on a short lead. It has felt as though I was missed by inches.

Mako, no dogs should not be allowed to run at strange people at top speed and in the same way, neither should cyclists, especially if they are approaching from behind. Quite apart from that there are speed limits in the park, cyclists could use bells to warn they are approaching and, finally, cyclists and joggers also like to use the perimeter path in the summer months (the area known as the dog walk) and some get annoyed when dogs are there too. I don't think that anyone has suggested that dogs should use the children's playgrounds or football pitches when games are being played or teams are warming up/training.....have they? So not sure what point you are trying to make.

BB I agree, good manners cut both ways. A fair number of cyclists like to power cycle through the parks and I have been startled a number of times walking my dog out of the park. On these occasions the cyclist bears down at top speed, approaching from behind and giving no warning. Many, many times I have stood aside to let parents and toddlers go through park entrances first, without a thank you or acknowledgement of any kind....they are not deliberately rude, they are simply oblivious, the same goes for the power cyclists and for those who walk their dogs without consideration for others. We all need to be more aware of others and that parks are shared spaces. Courtesy and consideration all round is the answer.

Rather odd that only comments in favour appear whereas those against, which we know to have been submitted, are not.

rah,rah,rah oooeerrr missus/Mr.

Mako, a dog that needs to be muzzled can be taught to wear a muzzle but it is not ideal and hardly warranted for the majority of dogs. The citation you give indicates training for dogs that need to be muzzled. Of the people that end up in hospital with a bite we have no way of knowing how many of those have provoked a dog or have done something really stupid like trying to kick a dog away from them because the dog is in their way. I have in depth knowledge of how people can treat dogs and sometimes it is no wonder they get bitten. Yes, you get rogue dogs but just how will you police muzzling when it matters? We already have laws and penalties for dangerous dogs, where muzzling may well be part of sentencing- if the dog survives. The key thing here is to get to the owners, they are the real problem. I had a smile when you said that training a muzzle is as easy as training a dog to have a coat on- I thought about someone I know who had a dog that started to nip at the sight of the coat because the owner had accidently hurt the dog when putting the coat on. The dog is fine now...but these things are not always straighforward. In that very nice article you refer to (it is a good site and I have used it too)you will note that owners are instructed to take their time training the muzzle...you can't just whack it on and problem solved. If you have a dog that is already showing aggressive behaviour to people then getting a muzzle on is even more problematic and will take a lot of time and patience to train. Be under no illusion that dogs can feel very vulnerable when they have a muzzle on. If you then plan to take your person aggressive dog out in a muzzle you can already see what the problem is- they may fear people even more (aggression, other than prey drive, is generally the result of fear). You'll note in that article owners are warned that the dog is not stressed or made to feel any negative associations while being muzzle trained or all the work is undone and the dog may become worse....I have known dogs aggress at handlers to stop a muzzle being put on. Will the ne'er do well owner really take the time to do this training and do it well....doubtful your honour. Ofcourse dogs that are trained from very young may be okay with a muzzle, though it can create problems in terms of socilisation and bite-inhibition- all key doggie learning curves. However, point one is this dog does not need to be muzzled because it is not showing aggressive behaviour, point 2 the owner that trains the muzzle well will be a good owner and a good trainer and it is unlikely they will allow a dog to ever get to the point that it harms a person. Once more, aside from the above, muzzling will not address dogs off lead, dogs charging people, dogs jumping and leaving muddy pawprints on someon's clothing etc.. Muzzling is not a quick'n'easy fix. In the end it is all about responsible ownership/education.

Taper, it is also necessary for owners to be aware of their dog's drives and to train/direct them appropriately. When dogs chase joggers bikes etc... It is almost certainly redirected prey drive, it's a different sort of aggression to that sparked by fear. It's the same instinct that prompts some dogs to chase squirrels or cats and even small dogs. A dog like a bull terrier may have quite high prey drive and that needs to be channelled as a pup with the right training and play. Again, I'd hazard a guess that this dog's owner failed to interact with and train their dog and so the animal finds itself another outlet....chasing joggers. All so unnecessary and avoidable when you pair a dog with the right owner. That dog should never have been let off lead, stupid owner. Grabot, Under sec 3 of the DDA both handler and owner may be liable for a dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place, if a person is injured this becomes an aggravated offence, both categories of offence come under criminal law and carry hefty fines and/or imprisonment. The dog may also be destroyed. Under the Dogs Act 1871 owners can be pursued under civil law for dogs that are ferocious and unmuzzled in a public place. As ever interpretation of the letter of the law is key.

rahrahrah, in principle it's a good idea, it's just a question of who would do the policing? The councils are totally unable to keep on top of responsible breeding practice, despite licensing and inspection mechanisms being in place. The proliferation of back yard breeders who churn out pups for profit are also part of the problem. Look at that guy who has just murdered two women. He was the subject of various investigations and exposes of his puppy farming, but still they could not close him down.

I would agree with that, problem is how to do it.

I have every sympathy for you father in law. However, I still maintain that these kind of incidents are not the norm. Again, the kind of owner that would allow a human aggressive dog to run around off lead is unlikely to muzzle them. The only people who will comply are the majority of responsible dog owners and they own the dogs that do not need to be muzzled. As I said muzzling does not address jumping up or even poor recall.

Mako, fear of the unknown is a normal biological instinct but learning about potentially harmful things enables us to give our fears a rational context, otherwise we would never step outside our home. Mortality stats show that the risk of death from a dog is lower than accidental drowning in the bath, being struck by lightning, being struck by a bicycle or car, or other vehicle, being attacked by a human, not to mention germs, viruses and other hidden nasties. Again, unless the dog has something really wrong with it the culprit is the owner and I can assure you the really bad dog owners will be the ones that never muzzle their dog. A muzzle does nothing to stop a dog jumping up.