Southwark Dogs in Parks public consultation - deadline 16 Sept 2013

[Alex K]

A lot of scrolling -- and never the word "muzzle" encountered. Dogs broken off lead or set to run free -- if muzzled, the chance that they will bite a human, another animal, surely must lessen. Compulsory for any dog in a public place -- on lap, on lead, however: Muzzle off only when at the animal's home-flat or -house. Should make many people feel safer, reduce objections to sharing spaces with dogs.

[Alex K]

Long, and mostly in German -- from the set of restrictions that people taking their dog to Austria should know about. Excepting "working dogs" (police dogs, guide dogs), dogs can be barred from certain public areas; or allowed into them (schoolyards, children's playgrounds, shopping zones) only on a lead AND with a muzzle; or allowed only on a lead or only with a muzzle... depending on the municipality, each setting its own rules. Outside the municipality's borders, in the fields and farmlands and woodlands surrounding a town, generally no rules (unless the township imposes some); similarly, if the town wants to establish zones in which dogs can run free, that's permitted.

Seems a rational approach, aimed at helping people live with people, dogs live with people (and vice versa), and dogs live with dogs.

http://www.austria.info/de/praktische-hinweise/grenzformalitaeten-und-einreise-von-haustieren-1161923.html

Leine und Maulkorb m?ssen bei Ihrem Aufenthalt in ?sterreich mitgef?hrt werden. Ein bundesweites Gesetz in dem die Anlein- bzw. Maulkorbpflicht genau geregelt ist gibt es allerdings (noch) nicht. Im allgemeinen wird vom ober?sterreichischen Hundehaltegesetz ausgegangen.

Ein Auszug daraus:

LEINEN- UND/ODER MAULKORBPFLICHT

Im Ortsgebiet* besteht Leinen- ODER Maulkorbpflicht. Bei Bedarf, jedenfalls aber an Haltestellen, in ?ffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln, in Schulen und Kinderg?rten, auf Kinderspielpl?tzen sowie bei gr??eren Menschenansammlungen, wie z. B. in Einkaufszentren, Badeanlagen und bei Veranstaltungen besteht Leinen- UND Maulkorbpflicht.

Ausgenommen von diesen Bestimmungen sind im Einsatz befindliche Polizeihunde, Hilfs- und Rettungshunde, ausgebildete Jagdhunde, sowie Hunde auf deren Unterst?tzung bestimmte Personen angewiesen sind (z. B. Blindenf?hrhunde).

Die Gemeinde kann durch Verordnung bestimmen:

+ wo Leinen- ODER Maulkorbpflicht im Ortsgebiet NICHT gilt (Freilauffl?chen)

+ wo Leinen- UND Maulkorbpflicht im Ortsgebiet gilt

+ wo das Mitf?hren von Hunden im Ortsgebiet generell verboten ist (Hundefreie-Zone)

+ wo auch au?erhalb des Ortsgebietes Leinen- ODER Maulkorbpflicht besteht

Die Gemeinde hat mit Bescheid entsprechende Anordnungen f?r die Haltung eines bestimmten Hundes zu treffen, wenn Gef?hrdungen und Bel?stigungen von Menschen und Tieren nicht anders vermieden werden k?nnen (z. B. erweiterte Leinen- und/oder Maulkorbpflicht, Errichtung eines Zaunes usw.). Letztlich kann sogar die Hundehaltung bescheidm??ig untersagt werden.

[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.

[Miacis]

Couple of points: this survey is appallingly biased and Southwark clearly have an agenda.

We need to see the actual data on incidents including a breakdown of what these are. Mako refers to seeing incidents every day. I also go to the park every day and have not seen an incident for ages and so a breakdown is important to give us all evidence about what the key issues are. Personally I am not convinced that the most serious incidents occur in the park but at home and probably with dogs who are under exercised, not trained or socialised.

Were the discussion about cyclists or teenagers we wouldn't be talking about bans or restrictions for all just to deal with the anti social behaviour of a few. Far better to focus on prevention of incidents eg through free community dog training classes. There are plenty of responsible dog owners who would be happy to help.

I also think restrictions should be time sensitive. I don't let my dog off the lead anywhere in the park on a busy Sunday pm but at 7am on a winters morning it's a different case

Muzzling all dogs when out is just ott. Dogs use their mouths to play with other dogs and that builds their bite inhibition with other dogs and humans. That's part of their essential socialisation which would be prevented by muzzling.

If there is an issue lets have an informed debate.

[first mate]

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.

[keane]

I use dulwich park daily, I don't have a dog. I like dogs and wouldn't want to see them banned. However,I do find dog fouling in dulwich park a problem and have often gone to lay out a picnic blanket on grass and discoverd dog poo which should have been picked up. I do think that dogs should be on the lead in the designated areas in the last week alone I was sitting in a 'dog on lead area' (on the grass, not near the dog excercise area) with my 9 month old baby sitting on a blanket and a quite large dog came bounding over and knocked her over and was on top of her - she was terrified and so was I as I didn't know if the dog was going to bite her. I shooed the dog off and picked her up as fast as I could and the owner came walking over smiling & saying "he's only a puppy" - maybe, but he should have been on a lead and shouldn't be allowed to run and jump on sitting babies. You only have to walk around the park and look down to see there is a lot of dog mess that shouldn't be there (not fox poo I know the difference)

I have filled out the survey as I saw it on the notice board and I haven't said that I think dogs should be banned as that is ludicrous, I have just said I think they need to be on lead where it says and off where it doesn't and that poo needs to be picked up/enforced. I do think the small dog free area works well in Peckham rye for those with small children who want to sit away from dogs or possible dog mess - but not sure if this is an option for dulwich park?

[chuff]

A small fence could be put up on the boundary of dog free area, it wouldn't stop larger dogs jumping over but it would clearly mark the boundary of on lead/off lead.

Honestly I've never noticed poo on the main parts of the grass but I tend to stick to the outside path when I have my dog. Agree that everyone should pick up their dogs mess.

[first mate]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

First they came for the illegal immigrants,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an illegal immigrant.

Then they came for the dog owners,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dog owner.

Then they came for the cyclists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a cyclist.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

[taper]

What the parks need is some sort of common sense compact with users. So:

* If you have a dog, keep it under control, keep it out of the few areas where dogs are banned and pick up after it

* If you are eating or drinking in the park, get rid of your litter responsibly and clean up after yourself.

* Don't have BBQs unless in designated areas.

* If you're cycling, or running, give way to pedestrians.

* Do nothing that harms the equipment or flora in the park, or act in a away that reduces the utility of the park for other users.

* Report anything you see that contravenes these standards of behaviour.

And then police these rules.

I'm sure we could all add a few, but that's all that's needed: a simple statement of expected standards, backed up with censure for those who don't abide. Certainly not more pettifogging rules and restrictions. But rather trying to publicise among all users the way people like me (who walks his dog, cycles, walks and runs in the parks) behave day in day out.

The key to the success of our parks is that they are used and safe. Keeping out a group who use them in all weathers is not a good idea.

So

[tiddles]

I am intrigued as to what these dog incidents are and look forward to seeing the data from Southwark. I am a dog walker, who walks twice a day in either dulwich park or peckham. I can honestly say I have never seen a nasty dog incident. Most dog walkers are awash with poo bags and ready to pick up - I have seen incidents where the owner was busy chatting and missed their dog however people will usually point that out to them. I do get annoyed when I see a pile that has not been picked up - very antisocial.

Most park users are responsible, however I do find the piles of water bottles left by some of the footballers a bit annoying and the piles food packaging left by some of the picnic-ers also frustrating - but we would not dream of suggesting that these activities should be banned because of a few irresponsible people, or that groups of teenagers should be banned as some people find them intimidating (yes a bit far fetched I know).

[DaveR]

"First they came for the illegal immigrants,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an illegal immigrant.

Then they came for the dog owners,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dog owner.

Then they came for the cyclists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a cyclist.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

I'm going to call Godwin's on this post. All the other posts comparing dogs to (for example) children I'm just going to call stupid.

[joobjoob]

Dog/people socialisation/education classes in the park are surely one of the best solutions. NOT JUST FOR DOG OWNERS but also for worried and fearful park users, especially children. Teaching children and adults to recognise and understand dog behaviour AS WELL AS DOG OWNERS too understand just how terrifying it can be to have an unfamiliar creature, (often larger than you), bearing down at full slobbering speed, is not something to be dismissed as "only a puppy" or " don't worry - friendly", after you've wet yourself. Its understandable and reasonable to expect owners to have enough control on there off lead dog, not to raid picnics, or slobber babies.

Well advertised classes, held with reliable and friendly dogs for children and adults who have had bad experiences to come have good experiences and also learn how to handle such a situation, or simply differentiate friendly from aggressive dog behaviour (should it happen again) would go a long way towards greater tolerance.

Im the owner of a boxer (a mastiff type) which sadly means people sometimes cross the road even when she's on a lead. Whereas people who have experience of Boxers will practically fall over to have there faces kissed. Friends and neighbours who've been terrified of dogs, have now got over it, thanks to her and are now reasonably confident with other dogs in the park. Horrifically my dog has also been savagely kicked by a man who deemed that she walked too close to his buggy on the path (we were simply passing him on the path in super boggy january).

As for the poo issue, perhaps all dog owners- as we're so experienced at picking up our own dog poo's, should pick up other poo when we see it. It never occurred to me, till I saw an old friend and fellow dog owner pick up the most disgusting one the other day. ALso challenge owners who walk away, its better to embarrass then to spend the whole day fuming.

[chuff]

where are dogs compared to children or whatever on here? I can't see that.

[first mate]

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.

[first mate]

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.

[chuff]

DaveR

It you are referring to me saying this..

We could be heading down the 'no more than 5 school children in any one area' route if we're not careful.

Then it wasn't comparing dogs to children, merely commenting that if we exclude one section of the community then surely more exclusions will follow. If Southwark do have an agenda to take back the park spaces for uses other than a public space for all, then where will it stop?

I don't like the stupid comment...

[spider69]

I have used dulwich park since a child when it had dogs, cars and people all using the same space. It does seem that the new status ed has given it self wants to mould the area into a sterile protected enclave.

There are no more dogs now than the past. All that has increased is the i want change chant from various sections of the new in take.

Dogs and people co exist together. People need to evaluate what this so called new risk really is, parents over protection perhaps

As a dog owner poo should always be picked up

As most people wont react to this southwark survey the few will push thru what they want

.

The park should be open to all

[DaveR]

It was mainly this:

"Were the discussion about cyclists or teenagers we wouldn't be talking about bans or restrictions for all just to deal with the anti social behaviour of a few"

which is directly equating dogs with teenagers, at least, but I'm happy to include your comment as well, chuff.

I'll say again, I don't have a dog in this fight (so to speak) but I think there is reasonable debate to be had (and ultimately decision to be made) as to whether the current dogs/parks situation is optimal, and if not, what might be done to make it better. The contribution to that sensible debate by the majority of dog owners who have posted on here is essentially zero, amounting to:

there isn't a problem

Southwark have a hidden agenda

the only problem is with irresponsible owners

nothing can be done about them anyway

So, let me put a straightforward question. Do all you dog owners think it would be reasonable for a non-dog owning Southwark resident to ask that a minimum proportion of the space in all Southwark parks should be dog-free?

[first mate]

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.

[chuff]

Can you qualify whether you mean completely dog free or on lead?

And why wouldn't there be a similar survey about cyclists in the park? It certainly seems to be as big an issue as dogs in Dulwich, though it isn't what I'd want or support.

[DaveR]

If you maintain that this is a sensible and constructive position:

there isn't a problem

Southwark have a hidden agenda

the only problem is with irresponsible owners

nothing can be done about them anyway

then I think we'll have to agree to disagree

[first mate]

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?

[Miacis]

DaveR I was not equating dogs to children. I was equating the debate about irresponsible dog owners (who are people) to other debates such as those about cyclists and teenagers where the actions of a tiny minority are used to demonise whole groups completely unfairly.

As far as I know there has yet to be a dog capable of picking up its own poo or reading notices. (Mind you, given the number of variations of poo breeds these days I forsee a pickupapoo being invented soon.)

I have no objection to dog free zones provided they are reasonable - there is one already in Dulwich Park and in Peckham Rye. I've never seen a dog in either. My concern is that the survey feels like it's heading in the direction of making the whole park dog free.

[mako]

Miacis

I do not say i see incidents everyday but that i believe there is an increase in dog incidents and i clarified my main area of complaint as that being of the dog walkers who have in my opinion an excess of dogs that they cannot control and cant see what they are all doing and dont clean up after. I use the cricket nets often and so am disproportionately impacted as they come into the park from the car park, and immediately look for somewhere to go. Not just poo but very regularly dogs urinate on the post of the cricket nets as its the first post in the park and the walkers dont see this as a problem. The dogs often also regularly put teeth marks in the cricket balls and slobber on them.

As i previously have mentioned i dont think my personal experience is typical, most owners i encounter certainly are more responsible than the walkers, and whilst dogs regularly reduce my enjoyment of the park i certainly dontthink they should be banned completely as i understand others get joy from their pets. However denying there is any issue, or stating that you see no incidents when it has been made clear that fouling is an incident is ridiculous as meet me any day at dulwich park nets and i guarantee that within 5 minutes i could show you evidence of an incident.