Dog Control Consultation

[Michael Ledger-Lomas]

You should control your dog, Taper.

[DuncanW]

It's nice that they have a designated picnic area, but I hadn't realised I had to use that area or else share my picnic with your dog. Thanks for the heads up!

[taper]

Michael Ledger-Lomas Wrote:

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

> You should control your dog, Taper.

She's easily shoed off. But is good at approaching from blind spots.

[Phlox]

They even have tables in the Arboretum picnic area.

[nununoolio]

Toffee Wrote:

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

Dogs are members of the Wolfe family.

This in a nutshell. The majority of dog owners seem to have forgotten this is the case. If they aren't trained and controlled, they can revert to wolf-like behaviour. They are not your babies or children. A lot of other people don't appreciate them jumping up at them, barking at them, snatching food etc....... Many people are scared of dogs. Please appreciate that fact and that some people don't want to say hello to your little darling.

Of course they should be allowed in parks and open spaces, but only with responsible owners who have trained them and can recall them should an incident occur or even be imminent. Too many people let them off the lead then wander around texting or chatting with no clue as to where their dog is or what it is doing, let alone how to control it. much the same with many parents and their kids though to be fair.

[nununoolio]

first mate Wrote:

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

I've said it many times but a far greater menace

is status dgs walked off lead on street pavements.

Why not focus on that? I can see that FPNs

delivered to the owner of the family dog mght be

easy pickings for an anti dog council.

I too would like to see dogs put on leads in

certain areas and for poo to be picked up and dog

walkers limited to four dogs but this survey

offers complete exclusion of dogs from large areas

of public space as an option. That makes me

suspicious of the real motives behind the

consultation. I would be furious if I was barred

from walking my dog in many of the borough's

public spaces.

Dadonabike, as he says a first time poster and new

to the area, seems to have been incredibly unlucky

in his experience of dogs in the area.

After today's and other recent reports of attacks on people in parks with perpetrators using bikes to get away, the council should focus on this type of crime. Doubt anyone would suggest a total ban on bikes in parks or that bikes should always be hand wheeled not ridden through parks.

Perhaps those with knowledge of research methodology can reply, but the way the survey is designed seems to ensure that these DCOS get put through because the only options are to choose greater controls or outright bans. There is no option to use existing legislation. For instance wardens can already issue fines for failing to bag and remove poo. I have never seen or heard of a fine issued though.

The only way to avoid the skewing in the survey is to tactically lie and choose the option that says dog poo doesn't bother you etc, etc. The fact is there is already law in place to cover all the issues, but it is not enforced. My hunch the Council would simply prefer the simplicity of outright bans.

My other point about dogs offlead on streets is this does present dangers to children, people and other dogs. In this situation most other dogs will be on the lead and being randomly approached by an offlead dog can lead to all sorts of problems. I simply cannot understand why the council with its fleet of community wardens on mopeds does not crack down on this real issue- but they will be too busy policing parking offences, I guess.

First Mate.

Instead of employing your usual deflecting tactics as listed above, you are missing out on the golden opportunity to tout for business from the multitude of people who need themselves and their dogs trained!

PS. The fleet of wardens on mopeds are traffic wardens not community wardens, they can only deal with parking offences.

[nununoolio]

taper Wrote:

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

> Not sure I'd support dogs on leads in the areas of

> Nunhead and Camberwell Old cemeteries which aren't

> used for new burials. Seems reasonable otherwise.

Trouble is many of the off lead dogs run loose from the overgrown areas to the active burial areas while their owners are clueless to their whereabouts.

[nununoolio]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> hmmm...

> not sure about 'dogs run in packs', 'children at

> risk', wording seems overly keen on painting a

> picture which I just don't see (on 3x dog walks

> per day, for the last 3 years, in all places

> mentioned above and others). Dogs aren't blind,

> just running into people - there may be the odd

> collision but that's what happens when you mix

> dogs/people in parks (or people/cars on streets).

> BTW Nunhead Cemetery looks to me like the real

> people patrolling it are the dogwalkers (private

> and professional), I'm convinced their perpetual

> presence is a primary reason there is limited

> vandalism and other. more serious, misdemeanours

> infrequent. I don't think I'm being a negligent

> parent taking my 3 kids and older relatives there

> frequently, I don't see a dog danger to kids there

> at all. You can't just change everything around

> you to suit yourself when it's been working fairly

> well for decades, if you've recently moved to the

> area why wouldn't you just wait a couple of years

> to build-up an accurate picture to support your

> 'case'.

> I don't support this proposition of 'Dog Bronx' at

> all.

> dog poo - yes obviously it needs to be picked-up.

> dogs off leads - there will always be a few and

> wardens need to enforce daily and be able to

> escalate after repeated occurences.

Nunhead Cemetery is still a working cemetery, then it is a designated nature reserve. Quite where packs of dogs running loose barking while their owners/walkers (professional? do me a favour!) shout, whistle and whoop for them to come back fits in to that picture I don't know. I agree that the more responsible people there are in the cemetery, the safer it will be. I would suggest the best option for a cemetery would involve dogs on lead at all times, no more than 3-4 dogs per person and no commercial dog walking.

A cemetery is primarily a place for people to pay their respects to the dead, also a place for peaceful reflection.

A nature reserve is a place where the flora and fauna are allowed to flourish. Nunhead Cemetery is both. I think so many people in the area have forgotten these things and see the cemetery as just another park. I include dog owners, commercial dog walkers (NOT professional!), parents bringing their kids in to play football/fly a kite or drone/drive one of those ridiculous electric kids cars etc......, parents allowing their kids in alone through a hole in their garden fence along Ivydale Road at night while the cemetery is locked, and adults choosing it as a location for a boozy picnic. FFS!

BTW. I work in parks and cemeteries and have witnessed everything the OP has mentioned and more on way too many occasions. In addition, the cemeteries team have received so many complaints from people with relatives buried in Nunhead Cemetery, people walking through the cemetery (including many dog walkers) and residents who live adjacent to the cemetery.

Nearly two years ago, signs were put up on the gates, notice boards and inside the cemetery, reminding dog walkers of the primary use for the site and asking them to show respect for that use. Can anyone honestly say any such respect is being paid by a sizeable number of dog walkers? Are any of you even remotely aware of the amount of real distress caused by irresponsible dog owners? Many people have travelled over from commonwealth countries to visit the graves of relatives who died in the First World War only to find dog shit on the grave! This is the sort of thing that happens when a dog runs off into the overgrown areas out of the owner's sight. How would you feel if you had to clean that muck from a grave you were visiting? This sort of thing is the reason why this particular consultation is taking place.

[nununoolio]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> It's possible that a "few people who hate dogs"

> have got in touch with the Council and here the

> Council is giving an opportunity for dog lovers

> and owners to have their say. I really don't

> think a total ban is envisaged.

Have you ever considered the possibility that these "haters" may dislike the irresponsible owners rather than the dogs?

[nununoolio]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Nxjen,

>

> Yes it would be a lot of space but if Southwark

> really has no interest in a total ban in some

> areas why offer it as an option? Anyway, I think

> people need to be very careful how they answer the

> survey as I really do think it is skewed in favour

> of getting as tough as possible on all dog owners

> as a means to try to control a few.

It really isn't "a few" though. Yes, there are a few deliberately irresponsible dog walkers, who should face the toughest possible sanctions. For every one of them there are also many who feel they are responsible dog walkers, but have little or no ability to control their dog(s), pay little or no attention to what they are doing (especially in parks and open spaces, where they tend to feel more relaxed, hence the amount of dog faeces found in such places, directly attributable to people who are chatting/walking ahead of the dogs, texting, clueless as to the whereabouts of the dog(s) etc.............), and have little or no consideration for other people (including other dog walkers) who may not want to be barked at, greeted with muddy (or even shitty) paw prints on their clothing, have their food snatched away or their kid's football burst. Nor is there much consideration for the wildlife and flora populating our parks and open spaces. The dogs aren't to blame when they kill or destroy things. It is the owners/walkers who think or say "oh it's just dogs being dogs" like it isn't a problem.

A lot of the people I have described above are lovely, friendly middle class types who would swear blind they pick up every poop their doggy does and can't see what the problem is when it takes them 20 minutes to get their dog back on lead after it has run/jumped into a dog free/on lead area "Oh he's always doing that the little scamp."

[Delainie]

Agree with everything nununoolio, and i am a dog owner

[d walker]

Although I agree with above posts. I am concerned that the majority of responsible dog owners will be penalised for the actions of the minority. I do feel some "professional " dog walkers walk far too many dogs and when they meet up with their fellow dog walkers the number of dogs becomes intimidating even to a dog lover like myself, also it's impossible to control that number of dogs and notice every single poo. I would be in agreement for council to limit number of dogs any one person can walk, but against banning off lead exercise.

The Animal Welfare Act stipulates dogs require off-lead running, if dogs are not allowed freedom to exercise then this leads to more frustration and agression. It goes without saying that owners need to have a recall on their dog.

[Phlox]

Agree with d Walker.

[alex_b]

nununoolio Wrote:

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

>

> It really isn't "a few" though. Yes, there are a

> few deliberately irresponsible dog walkers, who

> should face the toughest possible sanctions. For

> every one of them there are also many who feel

> they are responsible dog walkers, but have little

> or no ability to control their dog(s), pay little

> or no attention to what they are doing (especially

> in parks and open spaces, where they tend to feel

> more relaxed, hence the amount of dog faeces found

> in such places, directly attributable to people

> who are chatting/walking ahead of the dogs,

> texting, clueless as to the whereabouts of the

> dog(s) etc.............), and have little or no

> consideration for other people (including other

> dog walkers) who may not want to be barked at,

> greeted with muddy (or even shitty) paw prints on

> their clothing, have their food snatched away or

> their kid's football burst.

I saw this in Peckham Rye Park on Saturday morning. A terrified toddler (with some food) being chased around by a large-ish dog that was off lead and not under the owner's control. Eventually the owner ambled over and took control of her dog and seemed quite apologetic, but it could easily have wound up with an injured child. I don't see why parents should be constrained to concrete playgrounds if we want to avoid our children being chased or covered in dog mess.

[ianr]

> The Animal Welfare Act stipulates dogs require off-lead running

I don't see that the Act says that, or that it helps you here. Are you thinking of section 9, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9? The council is not the person responsible for the dogs.

On the questionnaire, I don't see how one can properly answer question

5. Do you think that dogs should be put on a lead when instructed to do so by an authorised officer?

without knowing the grounds on which a council officer may have the authority to issue the instruction.

[ed26]

Edited

[first mate]

ed26,

I think that many modern owners need more training in how to manage their dogs properly. More education of owners is definitely needed. Certainly there can be no excuse for not bagging poo and no excuse for dogs jumping over or chasing toddlers in any situation. Nor should more than the legal limit of dogs be walked together and I am a great believer that dogs should voluntarily be put on a lead in certain sections of the park including paths and fenced off garden areas, by the ponds and so on. Indeed, putting dogs on and off lead regularly should be part of daily training, especially for perfecting a recall.

However, all that said I would not want to see a situation when all dogs must either be kept on lead all the time or indeed where dogs are completely banned from large areas of parkland. Dog ownership would then cease to be a realistic option as many dogs, especially young dogs, do need to be able to run free for some of their daily exercise.

So there is a problem. Young dogs, like all youngsters will make mistakes and try their luck. Food left unattended in a park, albeit for a short period, will present an almost insurmountable temptation to many young dogs and even greedy older dogs - not the same as snatching food from human fingers I hasten to add, that is unforgiveable. If we want to continue to own dogs in London we have to find a way to compromise.

If there are sections of the park where owners must keep their dog on a lead then, if we want to give city dogs any quality of life, there need to be other spaces where dogs can run off-lead. Once running free and even with lots of training I do not think it would be possible to guarantee no dog would ever help themselves to unattended food.

I understand that some will not want or accept this compromise and may well wish to see a wholesale ban on any dogs in parks or at least that dogs are on lead all the time. I hope you agree that would be a shame. Should also say though that if my dog were to steal anyone's food at any time I would be very apologetic and perhaps a difference in attitude by these dog owners would have made all the difference.

[ed26]

Edited

[Take Note]

I agree totally with First Mate on this subject. Dogs should be under control at all times; this does not mean on a lead. It means they are responsive to their owner/walker in any given situation. If not, then yes, they must be kept on a lead - especially when the parks are so full of people trying to enjoy the sunshine. Personally I wouldn't sit having a picnic knowing that so many dogs have relieved themselves on the grass - but that's just me!

I also think this survey should be directed more to pavement-walkers and not concentrate so much on the parks, and professional walkers/owners. That way, perhaps the woman who let her blonde cockerpoo cr*p right outside The Galleon Hairdressers on Forest Hill Rd yesterday morning at 10.10am, might next time be a little more prepared and take a flipping poo bag out with her. How on earth can this behaviour be monitered if the wardens are only concentrating their efforts on asking dogs to be put on a lead just because someone is a little bit scared of dogs?