Southwark Dogs in Parks public consultation - deadline 16 Sept 2013

[chuff]

DaveR

Really? That's exactly how the thread has appeared?

I must need my eyes checked then as it reads nothing like you've stated. Most of us, even with opposing views are managing to have reasonable discussions about it.

On your point (though I've noticed you've not answered a few questions directed at you), for some parks to be dog free, some on leads and some with no restrictions. How would it be decided? And who would do that? Why should one set of residents be restricted in their local park and others have all restrictions lifted? This could work for smaller parks that are mostly children's playgrounds, close to larger ones but how many instances of two parks in an area are there?

I don't use Peckham Rye as I live right at Dulwich Park gates and having to travel further to walk my dog would be a big inconvenience as I walk through for school drop off and back on the way to my office. It would mean less exercise for me and my dog as time is tight generally. One of the reasons for getting a dog for me was having the park on my doorstep and making sure I used it every day, whatever the weather.

Generally I'm happy to have dog free areas in each park, as we already have and if it's just a case of a warden making sure these rules are adhered to, then it certainly looks to me from this thread that responsible owners are in favour. But and it is a but, Southwark haven't said what they are considering so how can anyone say that it won't be a ban or any of the other suggestions mentioned on here any more than they can say it will?

I've typed this on my tiny phone screen so please don't call me stupid for any typo's.

Edited for stupid typo. Ha ha!

[aquarius moon]

DaveR Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------.

>

> 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?

There is nothing wrong with this idea. I totally agree with you & said pretty much the same thing myself on page 2 of this thread.

A dog-free area, a dogs allowed to run free area, and a dogs on lead only area.

That way, everyone can have the choice of which part of the park to visit, depending on their circumstances.

[chuff]

And DaveR I apologise, I misunderstood the parks question. I thought you meant dog free parks rather than in each park,

So back to the other answer, we already have those areas in all southwark parks. There is a document somewhere in the thread stating the areas in each park.

[Suzib]

And brilliantly Peckham Rye already has a dog-free area, a dogs allowed to run free area, and a dogs on lead only area(s).

[aquarius moon]

Whereabouts is the dogs on lead only area in Peckham Rye park?

[chuff]

It says central landscaped area I think on this document

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/6454/dog_ban_and_dogs_on_leads_byelaws

[aquarius moon]

If it's a central area, what is the point of that?

So I would have to carry my 3 little dogs through the dogs allowed to run free area to get to the dogs on lead only area, in order to avoid large dogs running free!

Unless the areas are accessible via a main gate directly from a road, it is rather defeating the object, don't you think?!

[chuff]

Yes for your particular issue it is. It's possible it includes the entrance opposite Barry road and upwards towards the centre from there through the gardens? I've not been to Peckham rye for a while so could have my bearings off.

Have a read through that document, I may have misinterpreted it. I've been doing a lot of that today!

[taper]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> If it's a central area, what is the point of

> that?

>

> So I would have to carry my 3 little dogs through

> the dogs allowed to run free area to get to the

> dogs on lead only area, in order to avoid large

> dogs running free!

>

> Unless the areas are accessible via a main gate

> directly from a road, it is rather defeating the

> object, don't you think?!

The object of dogs on leads areas isn't to provide a space for people who don't want their dogs to come into contact with dogs off leads.

The principle of preventing dogs from walking free in Southwark's 60% of parks is a very bad one. There needs to be a purpose behind every preclusion or segregation. The assumption should be that parks are free for all to use unless there is a compelling reason to restrict access.

[aquarius moon]

Taper,

If you read my posts on page 2, you will see why I would like an area where you can walk dogs,

without coming into contact with dogs off lead.

[taper]

Yes I know. But your "what's the point of that?" seemed to assume such areas were provided for the use you have in mind. They're not. But as it happens a short walk from the entrance behind the cafe into the Japanese garden should suit your purpose with minimum exposure to unleashed dogs.

[MarleyLover]

Yesterday I was in the mini park around the corner from my house, and I noticed they had 2 signs tied to the gate posts with the questionaire attached. Looks like Southwark intend to roll this out to all green spaces in their borough. :-((

[chuff]

Somebody told me yesterday that the notice is on the gate at honor oak park too. I wonder why it's not as obvious at dulwich park? Weird.

[davidh]

this whole issue is being conducted by southwark in its usual cack-handed manner. no one really knows what they have in mind, except that it will enrage the maximum number of people (and probably dogs). the dog free area is called the arboretum just beyond the sexby gardens. dogs are strictly banned there, but it doesn't help when the yummy mummies leave a gate open!

[spider69]

Is it not time that Cllr Barber made some sort of comment?

He was contacting Southwark Officers on 12th August regarding this

Would make commenting more sensible if it was known what this is all about

[DaveR]

"The principle of preventing dogs from walking free in Southwark's 60% of parks is a very bad one. There needs to be a purpose behind every preclusion or segregation. The assumption should be that parks are free for all to use unless there is a compelling reason to restrict access."

As I said clearly, the figures I mentioned are arbitrary, just designed to identify the issue. As you say, the assumption should be that parks are free for all to use, and the question that the survey appears to be aimed at is in what ways and to what extent do the behaviour of dogs and their owners impinge on the freedom of non-dog owning individuals to use the park in the way that they want.

I still don't see any dog owners making any serious effort to address this question.

[taper]

I can speak only for me and my dog: we have no negative impact on any other park user. And from what I've observed of other dogs, the only significant issue is dog crap. The situation is a lot better than it was, but is still infuriatingly persistent. Other issues with dogs (aggression etc) are vanishingly rare. And when you factor the value added to our parks by dog users,the pros far outweigh the cons. Dogs walkers in the main care for parks: they report problems, make them safer and often provide the impetus for setting up Friends groups. So Southwark should work with dogs walkers, not constantly seek to chip away at their liberties.

[Zombiemonkey]

The survey: ok, we all tried to do our bit, by filling it in even though it?s not fit for purpose, just so that we don?t end up under- represented. I?ve done this myself! Instead, what we should do, is email Southwark parks on: [email protected] and request a copy of their data under the freedom of information act, for them to explain: ?Unfortunately incidents relating to dogs have been increasing, and we want to address this ?. We should all explain that we are unable to fill the survey unless we have the data to hand to support our views, and respond to the survey in an informed manner. There is no evidence that incidents have increased as far as I know- quite the opposite, as having been a dog owner in this area for the past 14 years, I have noticed a huge improvement regarding dog related issues myself!

Hope this helps,

Zombiemonkey

[Zombiemonkey]

PRROA meeting confirmed 31st Saturday week 1000am clock house pub

[mako]

Zombiemonkey. It is extremely unlikely that dog owners will be under represented in the number of surveys returned. Dog owners are obviously more likely to fill in this questionaire/reply to this thread etc as they have a vested interest to do so. People hardly bother to vote so unlikely they are going to spend time filling in the form unless they genuinely have an issue.If as many have said there are no issues then I would expect over 80% of forms to be filled in by dog owners.

[joseph holly]

I?ve just returned from my twice-daily walk around Peckham Rye Park with my dogs.

I made a point of looking out for uncollected dog-poo and spotted ONE (in the middle of the large field past the Oval). It could well have been fox-poo by the look of it, but I collected and binned it anyway. I saw NO others throughout the whole walk, despite looking out for them.

When I noticed my dogs lingering around a bench on the pathway between the top fields, I went back to investigate and found the ground around the bench littered with loads of fried chicken bones and discarded chips. There was a bin further down the same path.

Walking back past the arboretum fenced-in picnic area (dogs not allowed in there) I saw a couple of families enjoying their picnics on the benches. The gate to the area had been left wide open, so I closed it. The picnic area was strewn with rubbish ? plastic bottles, plastic bags blowing around, loads of paper on the ground. One of the park staff arrived in his buggy, went in to the area and started clearing up the litter while the families carried on with their picnics.

It seems to me that some people only come to the park when it?s warm enough to eat outdoors, then abuse it.

What was that survey called ? ?Dogs in parks, what do you think ?? On the evidence of my walk today, there should be another much more relevant one entitled ?Litter in parks ? what do you think ??

[Ann]

Well said, have observed the same at Goose Green many times.

[barriedalenick]

I'd just like to see dogs owners obeying the signs in DP and if they wont do so then I'd like Southwark to enforce the rules. It is clearly signposted that dogs should be kept on a short lead outside the dog areas but on a quick count the other day only one or two dogs in ten were on any sort of lead. I have tried to suggest to a few owners with unruly pets that they should put them on a lead and the rudeness and aggression this has been met with has been unnatural.

[ultraburner]

I'm on the Rye most days with my toddler. Generally I find most dogs are fine and haven't had anything at all threatening in the last 2 years of doing this.

Owners who leave their dogs crap behind, on the other hand, make my blood boil. Just saw a youngish woman walking a black staffie on lead and a big, tan coloured bull terrier let the big one do a huge crap outside the flats at the Nunhead lane and Peckham Rye junction. She stood and watched, then just walked off when the dog was done. Has anyone ever been fined for doing this?

[bonniebird]

ultraburner yes a few people have been fined in Peckham Rye park and Nunhead cemetary that I'm aware of and so they should be, I haven't filled the form out yet, didn't think it was very good, but as a responsible dog owner I will be at the meeting on Saturday