Southwark Dogs in Parks public consultation - deadline 16 Sept 2013

[chuff]

Keane

The dog free areas, on lead areas and poo fines are already in place so the council don't need to ask the public whether they want them or to have them enforced. Whatever they are hoping to get the support for, it will be more than the current restrictions. A warden to police these issues would also just be a matter of funding, surely?

People have been talking about a dog ban, on the street as such, not just here on the Forum and it is possible isn't it? I would hate to be hoodwinked into thinking i was filling in a survey for one thing, only to find it being used to promote a larger issue and one I disagree with.

It would be helpful for Southwark to inform everyone of their goal.

Mako

I did pick up a rogue poo in the bushes. Generally though I don't see it in the park, mostly on the pavements tbh.

[LadyDeliah]

Possible unforeseen consequence of banning dogs from parks, more dog poo on the pavements?

[chuff]

Well, yes LD. Not to mention that a lot of dogs, especially young ones need to play with other dogs to socialise and be tolerant of each other.

[chuff]

I'd also just like to say that for every person that dislikes dogs, there is one that loves them but for whatever reason can't or just doesn't have one. I would say on fifty percent of my walks, I get into conversation with people, especially the elderly and people with special needs that want to pet my dog. One lady told me she comes to the park solely to have contact with them as she misses them in her day to day life and one young man out with his carer will stroke any dog he can announcing that you've made his day.

I hope these people see and have a chance to complete the survey too.

[Haerton]

Majo, Keane. My 'point' about childreb, cyclists, motorists, drinkers was an attempt to play-back some of the spurious arguments we often hear about dog-owners. I wasn't seriously saying we should have child-free zones or regulations to keep kids in reins. Sorry if the point was badly made or too, err, subtle. We're all aware than amongst any group there will be a few who will break rules and make things unpleasant (drivers who speed, cyclists who use pavements etc.) but we quite rightly see that as a natter of existing rules to be enforced, rather than the imposition of Draconian restrictions on all. And I make my point again: as a community, we should be prying pressure on those who cause problems, rather than resorting to the "authorities" every time. And I certainly don't think I have any greater rights as a tax-payer, but I do have rights akin to others. The Council (and others) frequently dress moves like this up as 'protecting' taxpayers. Well, dog owners pay taxes too. A rather odd point about my puppy not paying taxes though. Presumably not many children do too?!

[keane]

Er no, it wasnt too 'subtle.' Irrelevant to mention tax -does for example a lower tax payer than you like a teaching assistant or auxiliary nurse or similar have less right to enjoy the parks because they pay less tax than a 'high tax payer?'

I think it's crazy if the council can't carry out a survey without people getting hysterical about banning dogs - no one has ever suggested this. Surely the council are just looking at what the problems are for people who use the parks dog owners & non dog owners etc and maybe they will be more visible about enforcing picking up dog mess etc which surely would make everyone happier apart from the minority of dog owners who don't control their dogs or pick up their poo. I don't see that anyone who is responsible has anything to worry about. And, yes I do like dogs.

[chuff]

If you're right Keane, then yes all good but I do know some of the staff at Dulwich Park are hoping a dog ban is imposed so the idea must have come from somewhere. That's what worries me.

[chuff]

Also Harris Boys School planning talked about using areas of Peckham Rye for their outdoor sports, but for some reason this hasn't happened. So Firstmate's suggestion of parks being reclaimed as playing fields is also feasible I think.

[keane]

Yes but look at the logic - dogs will not be banned just because of one or two dulwich park staff it's extremely unlikely. They won't start the survey with - we welcome dogs to our parks... And then ban them its just not realistic in any way.

[keane]

None of the state schools round here have playing fields only the private ones. I think Harris did want to use Peckham rye for sport which to me seems like a good idea at certain times of the week - I understood that the reason it hadnt happened was because residents had complained about the school

Doing this though this information may be incorrect. I hope it is incorrect as it would seem churlish to not allow a school opposite a field to use it for some PE lessons - and we wouldn't want to discrimate against young people as well as dogs surely?!

[chuff]

Agreed, I would expect a boys school of 900 ish boys to be able to use the public spaces too.

Keeping those spaces public however is important, apart from maybe between school hours. Assume this would be a health and safety concern.

It comes down to Southwark making their intentions clear.

[chuff]

and my point about the staff hoping for a ban is because the restrictions are already in place, so it's got to be more restrictions at the very least. If a ban is being discussed then that is surely feasible too?

[keane]

Not necessarily maybe they are just going to have a more visible patrol re enforcing dog mess pick up? Or maybe they are going to have a dog free section like in Peckham rye? I don't think it looks like they know - I would assume that is why they trying to do a survey. But I don't hold with conspiracy theories about non dog owners being encouraged to do the survey - it's been on the boards & website & given out & posted on here for anyone to take part in. I saw it on a board outside court lane entrance.

[chuff]

There is a dog free section in Dulwich Park and on the lead areas. I'm probably not explaining myself very well (normal for me). To have someone policing these areas and enforcing fines for not picking up poo is already in Southwark's power, I don't get why they need public approval to action this.

I too saw the notice on the court lane notice board but wouldn't have looked unless pointed out to me. Some people saw surveys being handed out, I haven't seen any of them.

[spider69]

They probably don't need to get public approval but if they go ahead with what ever they have in mind they can always say we held a public survey/consultation and taking it to the extreme if only one person wants a dog free park they can say we are implementing what the public want.

Rather like CPZ put up a notice somewhere, a few yes's and there it is done and dusted.

How may people look at notice boards when they go to the park or trawl the Southwark website for such information for fun

Consultations always imply the plan is on the drawing board to be nodded thru

Again what complaints triggered this survey what happens in other parks may not effect Dulwich Park

What is needed is park staff to enforce the rules but are any Southwark still employed

[chuff]

I'd just like to know exactly what they have in mind before committing to a view on it.

If it stated on the survey that they were considering allocating funding for dog wardens to issue fines for fouling and instruct owners to put dogs on leads in the appropriate area, then I'd say yes. If it stated that a dog ban was being considered, I'd say no. The dog control warden they mention in the survey, doesn't say what powers they will have if appointed.

I still think that if there are as many incidents as suggested by the survey, then all households should receive printed notification, as not everyone will be aware of the notices on the noticeboards. If they have been handing them out however as suggested in earlier posts, then it's not been that successful.

[LadyDeliah]

keane Wrote:

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

> Yes but look at the logic - dogs will not be

> banned just because of one or two dulwich park

> staff it's extremely unlikely. They won't start

> the survey with - we welcome dogs to our parks...

> And then ban them its just not realistic in any

> way.

I think it's pretty naive to assume that because the council states that they welcome dogs, they are not planning to impose serious restrictions on dogs in parks. The skewed tone of the survey contradicts that statement.

It wouldn't be the first time that in an effort to appear even handed; the council say one thing when their intentions are completely different. Not sure if any of you remember the attempt to sell off huge council estates through various arm?s length management structures and only negative votes of the tenants were counted against their imposition but tenants who failed to vote were counted as yes.

[davidh]

there are already football pitches in peckham rye park, surely the harris boys could use them, although they should not have any ownership of them

[mako]

even if the conspiracy was to let schoolchildren use the park (and if they havent got anywhere then that actually seems like a good idea) why would they need to ban dogs?

[chuff]

For the same reasons dogs aren't allowed in playgrounds I would think and I wouldn't expect a dog to be running around while school activities are taking place.

Could it be that reducing the space in the parks would force more dogs/families/cyclists/football games to the same areas and that it may have less opposition from the non dog owning community if those areas were exclusively for their use? I don't know anything about the legalities regarding schools using parks spaces though so feel free to put me straight.

I do think it's a good idea for school children to use parks but would hope that ownership of that land would stay as parkland.

Do southwark ever reply to emails?

[spider69]

They have 10 days and then a holding response if they cannot be bothered.

[DaveR]

This thread is hilarious.

Dog owner 1: There is no problem with dogs!

Dog owner 2: What a sensible comment

Dog owner 3: Southwark clearly want to ban all dogs - why not ban children!

Dog owner 4: Yes, I totally agree

Unsurprisingly, dog owners showing zero interest in whether there may be any genuine issue as to whether the current situation best meets the interests of both dog owners and non-owners (or 'canine haters' as they vare apparently known).

I asked earlier in the thread what I thought was a simple question - would it be acceptable for Southwark to decide that a minimum proportion of all public parks be dog-free? (Say 30% by area). A further proportion be dogs on leads only (say another 30%), and the balance unrestricted. The figures I have chosen are arbitrary, but why is there anything wrong in principle?

[edhistory]

mako Wrote:

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

> even if the conspiracy was to let schoolchildren

> use the park (and if they havent got anywhere then

> that actually seems like a good idea) why would

> they need to ban dogs?

Six years on....

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,26226,27232#msg-27232

[Anna27]

About time, I just hope they put it into action, park wardens who can in force fines I fed up with the dog crap in Peckham Rye. It's the equivalent of me letting my child poo on the floor then walking away, discussing! Same goes for people not keeping dogs on the lead around the pond etc..

[Lollipop]

That is interesting about letting your child poo - Dulwich Park has a lot of human poo in the bushes near the playground and those near the cafe. I know because my dogs have a rather unfortunate habit of eating human poo. I have seen it - with nappies and wipes. Just as they were consuming it...

I accept that there should be dog free areas - I have both dogs and children. It's frustrating, as a responsible dog owner who has picked up dog poo for more than 20 years, that some dog owners feel they do not need to do it. It spoils it for both other dog owners and families with young children who are quite rightly concerned about the risk.