Rules of Dulwich Park

[Rhubarb&Custard]

Peckhamboy - you have a nice way with words.

Honestly, do you really think that irresponsible dog owners bother to either read or learn from the EDF?

[camberwell70]

Did this really happen? 'attack us for no reason', 'monster', 'beastie', 'spiked collar', 'scars on neck'

Mmm, just curious. ('along the carriage way...')

Ciao

[SteveT]

I was attacked for no reason by a pitbull on brockwell park..................

and it really happened.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

The 'keep dogs on short lead' signs in Dulwich Park do not have the force of law because there was no dog control order made to back them up.

If someone puts up a sign saying you have to hop around on one leg, but there is no law saying you have to, then you don't have to hop on one leg if you don't want to.

[bawdy-nan]

camberwell70 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did this really happen? 'attack us for no reason',

> 'monster', 'beastie', 'spiked collar', 'scars on

> neck'

> Mmm, just curious. ('along the carriage way...')

> Ciao

I don't know about the original post but I can assure yo that the incident that happened to me and my little boy was real and the dog, indeed, had a huge spikey collar - this was one of the things that my son talked about a lot afterwards. He thought it was supposed to look scary and I;m pretty sure he was right.

[Toddinator]

Haha! SteveT - Do you really honestly believe that every dog "weighing more than 5lbs or 2.5 kilo's should be muzzled"? Seriously? So soppy golden retrievers? and labradors? Can you just imagine? That's just ridiculous - admit it!

[SteveT]

wbrown wrote:- Every dog in the country larger than a Yorkie would need to wear one and all this would effectively do is penalise the owners who are responsible enough to buy one

I don't see anyone being penalised, as the dog wears the muzzle.

If dogs can get used to using leads, why not wearing muzzles in public too?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Even soppy retrievers and labradors can turn - they are dogs. I don't think it's unreasonable to have all dogs muzzled. The only problem is that they cannot then fetch balls/sticks so would need fenced off areas where that could still happen.

[ianr]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'keep dogs on short lead' signs in Dulwich Park do not have the force of law because there was no dog control order made to back them up.

As I said at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,371722,372383 on 23/11/09

"A Dogs on Leads Order http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061059.htm applies to a specified area. The only mention I can find of one on the Southwark website refers to the Aylesbury Estate only http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Public/NewsArticle.aspx?articleId=37314."

OTOH, I can't even find evidence of that or any orders now on the Southwark website, after what the "Page not found" page reports is its "recently undergone ... major reworking." Does anyone happen to know what notices there are on the Aylesbury Estate?

I was open-minded about the OP, but I fully trust bawdy-nan's report. And I doubt that SteveT's the sort to mistake enthusiastic friendliness for attack.

I had a look in the library at the report in the print version of Southwark News, but didn't bother to copy it or make notes. I'll try to summarise it from memory later today unless anyone else does better.

[first mate]

The muzzle all dogs argument falls flat on its face for the simple reason that the owners of vicious dogs will not muzzle them. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker.

Do those who are advocating this really think that the kind of person who lets a vicious dog roam a park offlead, on its own, is going to bother muzzling it? To quote Eddy Milliband "come off it".

[ayresc]

A great deabate, however lots of poeple that know little about dogs.

Our family Jack Russell has killed 4 sheep and used to regularly hang off strangers ankles (yes a nightmare I know!) and he was under the suggested weight. On the contrast our Mastiff is 70 KGS and would only get aggro to protect my Mum.

The fact is, owners should be held responsible, irrelevant of breed (bar a few). You only need to look at how many people (predomenantly chavs) wind their dogs up which is one way of getting them frenzied.

That do that attacked should been reported to the polcie imemdiatley and delat with as an individual case instead of calling for clanket rules for 99% of responsible dogs and owners.

[Huggers]

As Bawdy Nan says, the dog had no owner. That was the problem. Leads, muzzles is nothing to do with it, if it doesnt have an owner on the other end of these things even if they were enforced. An owner would have been a good start for bringing this dog under control and without that everything else is irrelevent.

[cate]

There is an irresponsible female owner of three schnauzers in Dulwich Park. Her dogs are always off the lead, and not under control. They are always rushing up to other dogs and people, howling and barking. The other day she was sitting in the cafe area while her dogs were running around loose. They kept approaching other dogs entering the cafe area and barking at them. Her dogs come haring over to me and my dog and surround us while barking. Whenever I have said something to her, she just says Oh sorry........she seems to have no concept that three dogs are a pack and she needs to keep them under control. I only posted this to vent really. This kind of person also gives dog owners a bad name.

[Toddinator]

Sorry - that's ridiculous. People can turn too! How many crazy people are there around? Shall we start putting straight jackets on people over a certain size "just in case" as you never know! I was also going to say about smaller dogs being more vicious but didn't want to offend any owners. I agree that a jack russell is more likely to bite you than a labrador, or even a rottweiller who is a family pet is just not interested in biting people - it's just not their nature if they've been brought up in a family environment.

[first mate]

Cate,

Agree with you, one of my pet hates ('scuse bad pun) is those that let their dogs run offlead around the cafe areas, both in PR and DP. I don't care how well behaved your dog is, unless it will remain in a rock solid sit/down stay, offlead, for the duration of your time at the cafe, then get it on a lead. It does give all dog owners a bad name and is immensely irritating to other people, inlcuding other dog owners who keep their pets on lead at these times.

Toddinator, indeed JR's more likely to nip/bite than a Lab, not because of their size but because they are hardwired with a much stronger prey drive, since they were made to chase and kill small game. In short they are far more reactive and much less biddable than a Lab that was developed to work to command and to retrieve game to hand, rather than kill it. Cannot completely agree with you about a Rottie. If well socialised and very well trained they are a lovely dog, but they come pre-equipped with a very strong guard instinct and this should be borne in mind by the handler. A poorly trained Rottie is in my view a liability because of its guard instinct and its size. As ever, its really about people knowing their breeds, what they were developed for and offering appropriate training and handling throughout their lives.

[Penguin68]

Muzzling all dogs over a certain size/ weight because they might be dangerous is like jailing all teenagers because some are criminal thugs. The vast majority of dogs (actually of most breeds), like the vast majority of teenagers, are harmless and engaging (well, the dogs anyway).

Responsible owners know when their dogs are nervy, aggressive, difficult with other dogs, difficult with children etc. and act accordingly.

Irresponsible owners, like the one described, don't give a monkey's, and legislation as described won't impact them. We can't afford to employ sufficient dog-wardens/ pounds to police any such blanket muzzling requirement legislation anyway. Would wardens need to carry scales with them to weigh the dogs?

Law-making based on exceptions is generally poor law-making. If you want to cut down on this sort of thing, don't penalise the owners of non-aggressive dogs (who generally (the dogs) don't like wearing muzzles - would you?) - make sure that ownership of an out-of control dog can be severely punished - confiscation of all animals, life-time banning from keeping animals, fines and imprisonment. If it becomes punitive to have and train aggressive dogs the owners will begin to desist, because the alternatives are disproportionate to the 'pleasures' of keeping devil dogs.

[Toddinator]

First mate - do you agree that if dogs should "remain in a rock solid sit/down stay, offlead, for the duration of your time at the cafe" so should really annoying loud children who run about screaming and ruining everyone's peaceful tea and cake? I'd much rather a couple of dogs wandering about having a sniff, wagging their tails and saying hello to people than badly behaved untrained children.

[cate]

Toddinator, It would be great if all children and dogs were all under control. Dogs aren't allowed inside the cafe though. Are you talking about inside or out? The dogs I mentioned weren't having a sniff or wagging their tails, they were ganging up on other dogs and causing a ruckus. I really don't think you go to Dulwich Park Cafe for a peaceful tea and cake. I know I don't......

[first mate]

Toddinator,

Toddlers unleashed at full volume can be extremely irritating. I would, however, tend to support the rights of kiddies to roam in a public area like a cafe over those of any dog- even my dog! The fact remains that while many dogs may be kind and friendly, any dog can also take a dislike to another dog and a minor dust up or snarling fest' can ensue - the anti dog brigade can then use this as evidence that dogs are unsafe. In addition, lots of modern children are seemingly scared witless by large dogs and even a friendly dog is capable of knocking a child over.

I'm afraid the child versus dog argument is a non-starter and is not the way to go. I would agree heartily though that parents should return the favour when we keep our dogs on lead, by not allowing their toddlers/kiddies to run screaming around the animal, waving arms etc.. I do see this quite often, not just out and about but in pubs too!

In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times- the park being an exception to this. I think a park cafe is a public place. If your dog is offlead it is not under control.

There are people on the council (and possibly on this forum) who would be very happy to instate draconian laws against the ordinary dog and its owner, ideally getting rid of dogs completely. Let's not give them the ammunition. I think keeping one's dog on lead around a cafe is a sensible and easy option.

[ianr]

first mate: >In my view and under the terms of the DDA, any dog in a public place must be under control at all times.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (s.3) offence is the owning or being in control of a dog "dangerously out of control in a public place." Note the "dangerously".

[peckhamboy]

Surely by definition, nobody could ever be guilty of "being in control" of a dog that is dangerously "out of control"? The concepts must be mutually exclusive?

[first mate]

ianr,

yes, but a dog does not have to even touch a person for it to be deemed dangerous. For instance an offlead, friendly dog that bounds up to a dog phobic person might be deemed by that person as frightening and out of control. I know it is stretching a point but there have been rare cases like this.

Most people know that in a park there are likely to be dogs offlead. If you are severely dog phobic I do not think it reasonable to ask or expect that all dogs be kept on a lead in that instance- dogs need to be able to run freely. In any other public place I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that all dogs are kept on a lead, all of the time and, that includes the small areas around park cafe.

For those who will insist on letting their dogs wander offlead in the cafe area or, indeed, on the pavements and roads, I

should point out that other dogs that are on a lead may dislike being approached by a dog offlead- it can and does cause fights.

It makes sense to keep dogs on lead in all public areas except parks.

[Bunny19]

I have no problem at all with muzzling my dog, which I walk off the lead 3 times a day in Dulwich Park, but as a trade off I'd want all the trikes and bikes that zoom around the perimeter to have a 5 mph governor fitted to enable them to conform with the speed limits that are clearly posted. Simply neither are going to happen.

[????]

...you don't talk about Dulwich Park

[dulwichdogman]

us dog owners (any breed we have) must respect other users of the park ie runners, young familys, walkers, bikers, other dog owners, horse riders, etc. we must be in control of our dogs at all times. the park is there for all of us to enjoy in the right manner. as a dog trainer and walker i see good and bad in some owners. when i am walking a pack of dogs in the park that i trust and can control i have other dog owners with there dog come to me so there dog can play get involved with my pack. not understanding those dogs are bonded with me and see me as pack leader and the out sider is not on the list. in my view if you recall your dog and it dont come back the first time round keep the dog on the lead and do some recall training with him or her. my dogs and i are not perfect so a go back to the basics myself.