Jump to content

Recommended Posts

have just returned from walking the doggies in peckham rye park. damage by staff type dogs to the trees has reached horrendous proportions and we are now certain to lose many nice examples. bark has been stripped from the base of many trees and it may now be impossible to save them. park authorities really must start a programme of protective guards around the trees. I know cash is tight, but do we really have to write off our beloved trees? come on councillors. time to get cracking.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/21861-tree-damage-in-park/
Share on other sites

davidh Wrote: how the hell do you know that it is caused by staffy type dogs, do sit and spy on dog walkers? Makes you sound a bit weird if I'm honest. Maybe we should all get a Dalmation or some other piney dog

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

> have just returned from walking the doggies in

> peckham rye park. damage by staff type dogs to the

> trees has reached horrendous proportions and we

> are now certain to lose many nice examples. bark

> has been stripped from the base of many trees and

> it may now be impossible to save them. park

> authorities really must start a programme of

> protective guards around the trees. I know cash is

> tight, but do we really have to write off our

> beloved trees? come on councillors. time to get

> cracking.

If it is damage by dogs surely the owners of the dogs should take responsibility not the park/ council. It is another waste of tax payers money that dog owners are unable to look after what they own.


The alternative is to ban dogs from the parks and at the same time to ban them from the streets which would save the cost of cleaning up after them.


Alternatively why not reintroduce dog licences at say ?500 a year, you then have the choise between dog ownership or not.


Everything else is taxed so why not another thing.

James it could be that the 'anti bite' foul-tasting ingredient is not effective, especially if the dog is being worked up and encouraged to bite at the trees. A cage might be better. Anyone that sees dogs doing this should report it to the park warden immediately.


Anyhow, it is the owners that need to be caught and dealt with- antisocial behaviour in its myriad forms is a problem for us all. Of course, in some cases the trees are just ripped at by people sans dog, I've seen young males doing this in the park. The regular grafitti damage to the Japanese summerhouse is a pain, but at least the bowling pavilion has not been burned down again. However, a couple of years back vandals did set fire to some trees on the Rye.


What was it you were saying about banning those causing damage from the park and streets grumpy?

grumpyoldman Wrote:

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

> If it is damage by dogs surely the owners of the

> dogs should take responsibility not the park/

> council. It is another waste of tax payers money

> that dog owners are unable to look after what they

> own.

>

> The alternative is to ban dogs from the parks and

> at the same time to ban them from the streets

> which would save the cost of cleaning up after

> them.

>

> Alternatively why not reintroduce dog licences at

> say ?500 a year, you then have the choise between

> dog ownership or not.

>

> Everything else is taxed so why not another thing.



If dog licences were introduced the type of dog owners that allow their dogs to chew and damage trees wouldn't pay for a licence for their dog you can guarantee that. It would be impossible to enforce it aswell!


As for saying an alternative is to ban dogs from parks and streets I do hope you were joking!

nununoolio Ha ha ha idiot

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

> The owner of the Staffie (Not so weird now

> Lishyloo)that had been biting the trees was

> stopped and cautioned by the park warden on

> Sunday. Too late to save several trees, which have

> been badly damaged, but hopefully these attacks

> will no longer happen

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...