first mate

Should posting of photos, and naming and shaming, be done for most common forms of anti-social behaviour, or just dog fouling? I feel slightly uneasy about the idea, I can also imagine threads full of photos of one infraction or another.

How I wish I had been able to catch the serial litterers who had left Dulwich Park in such a state this morning. All along the bowling green, tissues, crisp packet, empty glass bottle, doilies, paper plates...nice. I spoke to the community warden and he said that he'd recently asked some picnickers to extinguish a BBQ, reluctantly they had done this, but left a load of rubbish behind. He managed to catch up with them and had a word and was told by one guy that he would like to punch him in the face. I just think that as a community we should try to tackle all forms of anti-social behaviour.

Chunksmum, I think your experience re the dog walker who had care and custody of the dog that has attacked your dog is awful. I would contact Trevor Cooper a dog law specialist to see what recourse you can get- I've a feeling you may have to sue the dog walker. If the dog he is walking has attacked your dog or other dogs before then that dog should be on a lead. I would add, as we know, all dogs are capable of 'having words' and one dog warning off or chastising another can look and sound very frightening but, if normal and proportionate, there is never a bite- as in puncture wounds. The severity of your dog's injuries means the dog that inflicted the damage is a danger to every dog and it needs to be pursued.

Elmgrove, from what I have heard the leaflets/survey were being handed out to people. Don't know of any dog owners who it was handed out to.

Precisely, there are already national laws in place for dog fouling where on the spot fines can be issued, there are already areas of the park where dogs should be kept on lead. If there are not the resources to police and enforce perfectly good existing legislation what is going to change with putting in more, will Southwark invest in more park and dog wardens...? Of course not. Southwark, by the way, axed all their dog wardens. The only difference with instituting dog control orders is that Southwark then have the power to make whatever changes they like without consultation.....complete ban of dogs.

I'd recommend going round to try to see whoever owns the dog, if possible try to see the dog so you can see what conditon it's in.It could be that the owners are going out in the evening and not aware of what their dog is doing. Failing that you could try the immediate neighbours. In my experience it is not that easy to get the RSPCA involved. If you cannot see the dog and it is on domestic premises they won't attend. Southwark noise will simply attend your property and take noise measurements- only if the sound exceeds so many decibels will they take action. I really hope you can talk sense into the owners because a dog that is barking and crying for hours on end is suffering immensely.

Taper, I'm tempted to say "stop urining"- but I know you're being ironic ;)

DaveR, come on, your simplification of points is a cheap rhetorical device. Your constructive contribution so far is to have a dog-free area in the park- good, except, as I have pointed out, those areas alrewady exist. Do you have anything else to add?

DaveR, I'm sorry that you have found nothing of use in this debate so far. It's never helpful, in my view, to label others as stupid, simply because you don't agree with what they say. Not the behaviour of someone engaging in a "sensible" debate, is it? Everything you have cited as of zero use and "stupid" is a matter of perception, those of others versus yours. As for your suggestion about a dog-free zone, I'm sure you'll know, there are already dog-free zones within the park, the problem is an anti-social minority do not adhere to requests to keep their dogs out of them. So, the real issue is probably policing and enforcement.

DaveR I'm pretty sure no-one here is suggesting that dogs and children should have parity in society,if that is what you are objecting to? As an aside, it is the case that the unique human/dog bond is partly fuelled by a mutual oxytocin flow that is not disimilar to the biochemistry of human/baby bonding- though obviously NOT the same. But it does explain why many get so attached to their dogs. For the record, again, I don't have a problem with people being made to pick up poo, being made to control their dogs etc... I would have a problem with dogs being banned from parks- my fear is that this may be Southwark's ultimate agenda, and it is one I will resist until I am clear about Southwark's aims.

joobjoob, Southwark have been offerd the services of trainers and also the opportunity to advertise training classes on their notice boards- they were not interested. I agree with you, more education is probably the way to go and it wouldn't cost Southwark a penny, since the trainers are free and people are also prepared to pay a small amount to attend a class. All Southwark need to do is allow a small space in the park to be used weekly for the purpose. A trainer used to do this on Peckham Rye, but the classes were discontinued....I'd love to know why.

I think to have your baby knocked over by a strange puppy is appalling, if the owner went to a good training class they would have already been coached in avoiding precisely this problem. I am glad (the mother of the baby) that you do not want dogs banned from the park and glad you expressed your specific concerns in the survey. My worry about that survey is the way it has been designed so that by answering yes to the non-specific "are dogs an issue" question, Southwark can use this to justify more extreme measures than simply fining people that don't pick up poo- that is if they catch them in the act- but that's a practical aside. The specifics on what issue you have with dogs comes later and will not necessarily be directly related to the more general statement when the data is analysed. As I have said, much depends on what is really motivating Southwark to do the survey, whether it's simply some control or the first step towards banning dogs from parks. The problem is that a couple of incidents of getting poo on shoes or something else, can understandably enrage people- honestly I feel the same, but I just wonder if the anger colours the issue of frequency? I only say this because I am genuinely perturbed and just don't see that much poo in the parks around ED. I also use the parks for pursuits other than exercising my dog.

Good points, Southwark have been offered the services of trainers but do not seem interested. Education would make the majority of owners much more aware and sensitive to the need for appropriate behaviour according to circumstances. Clearly if there are loads of people having a picnic, letting your dog off is not a great idea, unless they walk perfectly to heel and have a solid recall.

AlexK, Muzzles won't tackle the issue of dog fouling- the bit that gets people really riled. Muzzles won't make much difference to people that simply dislike dogs and don't want them in the park. Aside from that, dogs that have been known to inflict serious damage on another dog, or to bite a human/child, should be muzzled anyway. We don't need dog control orders to do that. I do think a more concerted effort to educate owners would help, with some dedicated training- but Southwark is resistant to this happening on its property for some reason. I do agree with you that all dogs should be muzzle trained so that in exceptional circumstances and where necessary a muzzle can be used.

Applespider, you make a very good point- park speed limits (is it 12mph)don't seem to be well enforced at all. It is tempting to mount an online survey now to ask if anyone has experienced any cyclist related issues, and see what happens. My issue would be that I often don't hear them coming behind me and feel that if I stepped out by only a few inches I'd be a gonner. BTW all for cycling, just using above as an example of the Southwark survey MO.

chuff, I think Southwark have deliberately been unclear because the survey is a fishing expedition. First suggest that there is a problem of some kind, then ask people if they are aware of dog related issues in a dodgy survey. For every person that answers 'yes' bearing in mind that it might be something quite minor, Southwark can start to build stats that say x% of respondents say there are issues with dogs in our parks. If a similar survey was done with similar wording about any other sector of park users you could build a substantial number of seemingly anti people too. As you point out, we all have the odd issue with each other but we generally rub along.

Mako, I don't think Southwark's intentions are clear. Control orders might be a first step, but if those don't work, for the reasons given ie enforcement and resources...what next? It is not unknown for control orders to be used to ban all dogs, once in place, who decides? Something of the thinking of Southwark may be apparent in the exceedingly dodgy survey design- hardly even-handed. As I have said, all of us dislike dog poo. It is not necessarily less offensive to me as a dog owner,than it is to you as a non-owner (that is an assumption and I am sure you'll correct me if I am wrong). For the person who said they hadn't seen an incident in 20 years I would imagine they are not referring to fouling but something more extreme. In fairness, Southwark do not specify what is meant by dog-related issues. However, I would add that having lived in the borough and ED for over 20 years it is not my experience there has been a rise in fouling either, but yes, there is fouling and it is regrettable.

It's been said many time before, but none of us like dog poo, not even dog owners and the majority of dog owners do pick up. Aside from the quite understandable emotions that the subject triggers, what, on a practical level, would you like the average, repsonsible dog owner to do? Like you, we have no control over the anti-social minority. If we really think that patrols and fineas are going to work then ok, but I, as you will have read , am not convinced there are the resources available to properly police and enforce dog fouling laws. To ban all dogs from all parks would be highly punitive and detrimental to the responsible dog owner. I also think that a city sterilised of dogs, an animal we have kept as a pet for thousands of years, would be a loss. But I would think that.

DaveR, I protest. The debate is happening on this forum, not being suppressed. What claims have been exaggerated and by whom? My view is that the current "survey" on Southwark website is poorly designed and designed to give a misleading overview of attitudes to dogs in the parks. Why would they want to do this? As another poster has implied, the sense is that they have an objective, their minds are made up, and are now trying to get the ammunition with which to push it through. Open -ended propositions are one way to do that.

Mako, Fair point- I meant those of us who frequent the park daily to walk our dogs, but I should have qualified that statement. By and large dog walkers (as in owners of)use the park all year round, even in cold, wet and windy weather. Overall, no I have not seen an increase in dog related issues, but I am only guessing what that term may mean. You say that you have seen an increase- could you elaborate?

DaveR, I don't know the source of your stats,so cannot comment on those. If the overwhleming majority want dog-free parks I suppose it is curtains for the future of dogs as pets in the city. However, I see no evidence for this view, nor is it clear on what grounds Southwark are pursuing this. Those who frequent the park daily see no evidence of an increase in dog related issues- whatever that very open-ended statement means. I do suspect there is a minority that would like a no-dog city, but I very much doubt it's the majority. On the subject of Dog Control Orders. I think the degree to which byelaws can be policed and enforced is wholly relevant to the debate. I think it is vital to know exactly what the aims of the legislation are and how achievable, otherwise it's a waste of time and money, surely?

Mako, Enforced training;) Seriously, if you put in laws they have to be policed and enforced to be effective, that means an awful lot of park wardens. The wardens also have to be prepared to go mano a mano with a certain type of person and I just cannot see it happening. Surely the same problem applies to all forms of anti-social behaviour, first you have to catch them at it and then you have to enforce whatever law/punishment it is and that, in reality, is not easy to do. So, to make Dog Control Orders effective as a means to controlling levels of dog fouling in parks (purported levels we still need to see some hard evidence for) they would need to put major resources into patrolling personnel with the ability to enforce on the spot fines. Perhaps they'd need to put CCTV all over the parks. Is this a good use of money.....? Is dog fouling really the number one threat to society right now..? The only way you'd stop the fouling is by banning all dogs from all parks...and I've a feeling that there are those in Southwark that have this very aim in mind- it would free the parks up for other purposes. So, as a dog owner, of course I'm against it. It would make keeping dogs in the borough almost impossible and alter centuries of tradition of people owning pet dogs. In my view, dogs have an important role in the daily lives of many and such a swingeing change to their lives is simply unjustifiable.

Jane, I agree. Do those who complain about dog fouling really, truly believe that the irresponsible minority will relinquish their anti-social ways because of dog control orders? The anti-social few tend to be so in a variety of ways, and letting their dog crap everywhere is just one of them. Dog fouling is unpleasant, no two ways about it, and many dog owners will ask each other for bags or tell someone who hasn't picked up to do so. Hand on heart I really think it has improved, not got worse. As for the health issues, yes they are true up to a point, but there are a host of other nasties lurking in the undergrowth- fox poo is dangerous, as it rat urine, Weil's can kill you, it's just that people are not focussed on that. Control orders will heavily penalise the responsible majority and those who couldn't care less will simply carry on. I would bet that if control orders are put in the canine poo levels will stay the same but the council will get a few quid in on fines for the newbie dog owner whose puppy has accidently wandered into a no dogs area. At this point Southwark might then press to ban dogs from all parks full stop....mission accomplished. I just cannot see the wardens issuing on the spot fines to the I couldn't the care less minority- they'd probably be too scared for starters. I'll never forget the community wardens who were terrified to go within 100 yards of an abandoned dog on Peckham Rye- they had no idea what to do.

In regard to professional dog walkers and numbers of dogs, I believe the DEFRA recommendation is no more than 6 and many councils stipulate no more than 4. At any rate I don't think a dog walker would be insured to walk more than 6 at a time and every dog walker should have the right cover for their work and that inlcudes transport in cars, which is also covered by law. Cannot remember if professional dog walkers have to be licensed or not, but anyone walking more than 6 dogs at atime would be in breach of insurance contract and probably council byelaws.

DaveR, Yes, debate okay, but Southwark have already started by massively skewing that debate by the style of survey- when you see a skew you might be justified in thinking that minds are already made up and the survey/"debate" is merely window dressing. Of course, it is not clear either what dog control orders Southwark have in mind, but feel even something minor could be thin end of the wedge. I just do feel there's another agenda here and it is to do with schools and access to playing fields- the park is just about the only land left the council have at their disposal.