first mate

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.

I think that word needs to spread amongst the considerable dog owning community and support from sympathetic councillors organised, as well as some kind of protest- perhaps an online protest could be organised and forwarded to Southwark? Since James Barber has already commented on this thread perhaps he could suggest a way forward? I suspect there will be growing concern about what appears to be, as the last poster calls it, "a done deal". I know that Boosboss is rather good at this sort of thing and perhaps he will have some ideas too.

mako, no need the limits are already there in law, it only needs a park warden to apprise themsleves of the law, I believe.

I agree, responsible ownership is a must, just like responsible parenting, cycling etc.. Could Southwark be persuaded to allow some educational training classes for dog owners, or even would-be owners, to take place in the park? They always seem to say it is not possible but give no clear reason why. If other pursuits like fitness training (paid for by groups of clients) as well as alternative educational establishments are allowed to make use of the park, I cannot see why dog training should not be added to the list.

I also managed it second time. On of the first and most leading questions goes something like "do you think there are any dog-related issues in the park?" I have deliberately interpreted this as "do I think there is an increase in dog related issues", and so have answered no. For some people, the mere presence of a dog on lead and totally under control, would be an issue, so I think this question is deeply flawed and will lead to very misleading results. The survey is heavily biased from the start. How would we answer if we were asked "do you think there are people -related issues in the park" or replace people with children, cyclists...

FWIW, I have just tried to access the form, but you cannot do so unless you sign in or register with Southwark, even though it states that you can just click and access the form without doing either. James Barber, is there any way you could get the council to rectify this? I imagine that not everyone will want to sign up or register with the council online. I also wonder how the many elderly dog owners, who may not necessarily be online, are to be heard in this survey? The whole thing seems dodgy to say the least

I'm deeply sceptical about this and echo boosboss observation in that there has been no visible increase in so-called dog incidents, that I have noticed, as a regular day in day out park user. I think that we should demand context and detail from the council. How is a "dog incident" defined; what are the figures and what data are those figures being compared with? There is a perception, albeit misguided, that there is a deeply anti-dog contingent within the council, and this rather odd survey does nothing to change one's mind about that. The greatest damage I have observed in the park to date has been done by humans- tree branches being ripped down (sorry, but I've seen kids doing this a lot); grafitti on the japanese summerhouse that had to be cleaned (at what expense) only recently. If there have been incidents under the DDA these will have been logged- so let's see the data. If we are talking about dog poo, again I would like to see the data. Southwark does seem to be trying to push this one hard and I wonder if they have an agenda they are not admitting to? There is already one alternative school setting up on Peckham Rye, they will be using the park for education purposes. No problem with that, but it is known that schools are short on playing fields and one can imagine that more schools will want to use the park for sports during the week- off lead dogs will get in the way, won't they? Southwark are so keen to get dogs out of the parks and yet show an absolute failure to deal with the real danger which is dogs off lead on the public streets- why not put as much energy into that? I believe the reason is possibly because Southwark need to use the park space to replace the school playing fields that were sold off- with a burgeoning population of children on the way they have to do something. Offlead dogs are just inconvenient. I think Southwark will have a battle on their hands, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is quite clear that the needs of domestic animals must be met and the majority of dogs require daily, offlead exercise. For those who already own dogs these control orders would be a massive and unjustified imposition. For what it is worth, a number of trainer have, over the years, approached Southwark to give weekly dog training classes in some of the parks- but there's always a reason why this cannot happen. Surely it's a no-brainer, if Southwark wants across the board, good dog ownership, at least allow some training and education to be given in the parks. The dogs would always be on a lead, so why not...?

Thanks to everyone for their interest. I am pleased to say that the RSPCA are now fully involved and they are monitoring the situation. They have visited the owners who have been read the riot act and have the option to care for the dog properly or to rehome it and the RSPCA will supervise the process of rehoming as well as ongoing care under the custody of the current owners. The RSPCA are also in contact with the landlords who are now fully aware of what is going on. If it comes to it, there will be no problem rehoming the little dog as she is an absolute sweetheart.

Nothing yet from RSPCA, but I'm monitoring the situation and may have a way to sort it.

I had a call from the RSPCA asking me to contact them for an update, which I did and I am now waiting for the Inpector dealing with the case to call me back.

peristalsis, another local also heard her whining and yelping and said it had started yesterday afternoon, much earlier than I had heard it. The owners did not show until late morning/luchtime today- so yes, bar our intervention, she'd been alone in an airless room without water for around 24 hrs- but even 12 hrs is way too long. Anyhow, I don't want to get on my high horse, I just want to make sure the dog is okay, and that is what I'm focussing on.

Thanks everyone for your support. The 'owners' have finally returned but there is an ongoing discussion between us about the dog and her future. There are complicating factors, which I cannot post and I need to find out more. I only hope that this little dog is still around tonight. The RSPCA have still not shown up. I have had a number of conversations with the police, who felt unable to intervene. Southwark noise was, obviously, only really interested in the decibels and impact on my ears. Both said this was a matter for the RSPCA. I have also left messages with the landlord and with Catch 22, neither has replied. All this gives an interesting insight into how things work or rather don't work. As ever, self initiative is really the only option. Edited to say, did I really just post 'self initiative'- I must be tired!

She is panting heavily, as dogs do when they are very distressed, plus the room is very hot. She is also totally exhausted and everytime I go in she slides to the floor and sleeps for a few secs and then jerks awake. Dogs are highly social animals, to put her into solitary like this for now 24 hours (without water, if I hadn't been there)is incredibly cruel. I hope the local RSPCA are reading this. I've put in 5 long calls since yesterday evening and still no sign of them. Come on RSPCA, a dog is suffering here, what's the delay? I have taken photos of the dog, the room and other rooms with dog shit in them, just to have something on the record.

CORRECTION the dog is a bitch.. Yes, I have given her fresh water. She does not look badly cared for, which makes her current set up all the stranger. I can easily access her and have been popping in and out. Another call to RSPCA and have been advised in the strongest terms to leave her, and I quote, " or we'll having nothing to investigate, I know it sounds cruel but..." So, as it stands, I've had a call from the RSPCA call centre and they say an officer will investigate, but no time given. I will continue to monitor her myself over the next few hours. Again, if anyone recognises the description of this dog please say. She is lovely and really friendly.