Dulwich Park - Dogs Must be Kept on Short Lead

[Sue0103]

Hello,

Today I took a walk down Dulwich Park after a very long time to enjoy the sun like many others. A huge dog came charging at me. I was truly scared and asked the lady walking the dog, shdnt he be kept on a lead. As thats what it says at the very entrance of the park. Pics attached. The lady very rudely replied that if I'm scared of dogs I should not walk in a park and only walk on roads.

Now I have a few questions to dog walkers and I know not all of them are unreasonable or rude. I usually dont mind dogs who are not kept on lead as long as they dont come charging at me -

1. I pay as much and full council tax as anyone else. I also pay 40% tax on my salary to the government. Do I not have the right to walk the parks in London without the fear of being attacked/ mauled by a dog? I have nothing against dogs, but I do not like them licking me or worse, biting me. That scares the shit out of me.

2. If there are signs right at the entrance of the park that say "Dogs Must be Kept on Short Lead", is it so unreasonable to expect dog walkers to obey them? Especially when there were a few people in the park with their dogs on a lead.

3. Why is it that despite paying these huge taxes I'm considered unreasonable for following the law and some dog owners/ walkers are not even when they leave their dogs to charge at anyone and litter our walkways with dog poo?!

I dont frequent parks very often as I work full time but off late I have had some time off and wanted to clear my head with a walk. I had a terrible wallk as I was terrified throughout the time of those dogs running around and hoping they dint come charging towards me.

I live in East Dulwich and I really wish I can go to the park again for a peaceful time.

Sue

[Otta]

This could have changed, but I was always under the impression that dogs could run free around the perimeter of the park, but had to be on leads within the main park (inside the bounderies of the horse track).

[SueOrr0103]

Ottawa, these couple of pics I took are right at the entrance of the park.

[Nigello]

Sue, you'd be much better off sending this to an official at the council and/or speaking to the park attendants. You can't legislate for unmannerly behaviour, but you can make your feelings known to the right authorities.

[first mate]

Sue, no currently dogs do not have to be kept on a short lead in the area you have photographed which is where people are asked to exercise their dogs off lead.

How close did the dog in question get to you? While I have every sympathy with you it is quite difficult to avoid proximity to dogs off lead in the areas where they are exercised off lead.

Those notices were installed by the council some years ago but are not enforceable. Given that the notice you show is placed at the beginning of the area where dog owners are asked to exercise their dogs off lead it makes for confusing information for both sides of the equation. That is possibly why the dog owner reacted in the way they did. I blame the council for giving out confusing messages.

[SueOrr0103]

Nigella, thanks for the suggestion, will do that.

First Mate, I was not attacked by the dog in those off the road areas where I have seen people exercise their dogs. I was attacked on the main road in the park very close to where the ice cream van usually stands.

I do not know if council's signs are wrong or not, but all I want to say is that surely parks are meant for people as much as dogs. Especially given we pay council tax and dogs don't! I mean seriously, is expecting to be not attacked by a dog in a public space unreasonable????

[ianr]

From the Southwark dog byelaws http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2859/dog_ban_byelaws

"1(3) Byelaw 6 applies to the public walks, pleasure grounds and open

spaces or parts thereof described in Schedule 3, hereafter referred to

as the "dogs on leads areas".

1(4) Byelaw 6 does not apply to any roads within the dogs on leads areas

for the time being designated under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act

1988."

It is actually byelaw 5, not 6. I assume that 1(4) is also meant to refer

to it: byelaw 6 is actually about removal of offenders. Byelaw 5 says:

"5. Dogs on Leads

No person in charge of a dog shall, without reasonable excuse, permit the

dog to enter or remain in any of the dogs on leads areas unless the dog is

held on a lead and is restrained from behaviour giving reasonable grounds for

annoyance."

Schedule 3 includes in the "Dogs on lead areas":

"Dulwich Park ? Central Area & Sports Pitches

Peckham Rye Park - Central Landscaped Area".

I'm not sure how conclusive the "central" is, but I think I'd assume it

excludes the entrance and road areas, regardless of whether or not 1(3) applies.

Perhaps the signs indicate the boundaries of the intended areas.

[tiddles]

Yes that sign is confusing as it is right by the area we are told to exercise our dogs off lead. I have been told by the cafe people (who liase with the grounds people) that dogs should be on leads within the tarmac'd path, but are free to be off lead on the tarmac path and outside of that.

I might be misreading your opening post (so apologies if so) but were you actually attacked or did the dog just run near you? No it is not at all unreasonable to be able to walk about without being savaged by a dog - in which case you should contact the park authorities straight away (and police if necessary)

[Mustard]

Did the dog really attack you? If so, you should have called the police.

[Jeremy]

Dogs running around in parks? Whatever next! I pay my taxes you know!

[SueOrr0103]

Jeremy: don't like dogs charging at you or dog poo? Stay away from parks and footpaths.. Whatever next! And they will not even pay taxes!

[acanthas]

These kind of hysteria posts fill me with dismay.

And as Mustard says - did this dog really attack you, or were you simply caught unawares by a single over zealous boisterous dog? Yes - over exuberant dogs should be better managed by their owners, but honestly I think this is a complete over reaction, and knee jerk response to one unfortunate incident.

Dulwich Park is VERY busy. Myself and my children always have to avoid speeding cyclists, roller skaters, flying footballs - but hey, we live and let live. I was once floored (9 months pregnant) by a child on one of those yellow reclining incumbent bikes, I went flying, but I didn't start tub-thumping about it. The park is for us all - and we need to let everyone enjoy it.

(As an aside I really don't think how much you pay to the Government in taxes has anything to do with your argument - no one has a greater sense of entitlement due to paying more tax).

[first mate]

Sue, sorry, need a little clarity here. Were you attacked, that is did the dog behave aggressively and physically touch you, or was the dog aggressive and close to you or did the dog simply run towards you but make no contact with you? I completely understand that you might dislike be nervous of dogs and so not want to be close to one but the word 'attack' has a very different implication. If you were attacked you would have recourse under the Dangerous Dog Act and that owner might be required by law to always have their dog on lead in a public area.

If it is the case that the dog was running around within yards of you and you felt uncomfortable with that then it is a somewhat different scenario.

I do agree that on tarmaced areas and areas around caf?s and so forth it would be reasonable to expect people to have dogs under greater control and unless they are highly obedience trained this probably means a 6 ft lead.

[first mate]

The area photographed by the OP and which includes the sign is at the periphery of the park and is known by many as the dog walk. It seems almost deliberately confusing on the part of the council. The signage was actively challenged a number if years ago and the council backed down.

[SueOrr0103]

The dog came charging at me at high speed and I screamed. Yes I did not wait for it to attack me and then post this. But I have been approached, touched, licked, attacked by dogs in the past in parks, but did not want to do anything abt it.

Why is it that live and let live rule never applies to law abiding ppl who actually respect public places?

And I mentioned abt taxes only because I was told to not walk in the park if I'm scared of dogs charging at me. Park being busy is one thing not being safe is entirely a different matter.

[first mate]

Sue, not meaning to split hairs but how close to you did the dog get and what happened when you screamed? From what you say it sounds as though the dog stopped or came no closer?

[chuff]

Maybe if you'd started the exchange with the dog owner with 'I'm scared of dogs' rather than a passive aggressive 'shouldn't your dog be on a lead', you might have met with a better response. Most dog owners would quickly remove their dog and apologise in that situation.

The park is a public space, it's not always the experience that we'd want but that's tough really. We choose to use these spaces and we have to muddle along together.

I'm confused about the tax issue though? How does that relate to the park?

[SteveUK1978]

There will be plenty of posts that pick apart your story, pull you up on loose language around being "attacked" etc....but the facts are, people are supposed to have their dogs on leads other than the exercise area (pretty clearly marked) but hardly anyone does.

Not going to change unless the council start enforcing it - which they won't.

[acanthas]

Op - I think the nitty gritty is that you are terribly frightened of all dogs, and that you see every dog who is not on a lead as a potential 'attacker'. What I fear from your post is an underlying narrative to see dogs banned from parks.

While I appreciate you have this panic and terror around dogs, you are intimating that because you have this fear all dogs should be placed on a lead in case they 'come charging at you'. My point was that speeding cyclists scare the beejeezuz out of me too but I don't want to restrict them in anyway - it's not MY park, it's a local park for everyone. I just get on with my time, and move away or avoid the areas where the cyclists are (i.e. the perimeter track).

There are clear areas for dogs to run off lead, and clear areas where dogs should be on a short lead. And yes - if the dog that came bounding up to you was in the latter then of course you are in the right to speak to the owner about it. But if the former then no - and in future definitely avoid that area so as not to feed the fear.

And I think you find 99.9% of the people in Dulwich Park are 'law abiding' people.

[Penguin68]

Anyone actually attacked by a dog (i.e. the dog attacks and bites or attempts to bite, with clearly malicious intent) deserves sympathy and is right to seek a remedy; but from what the OP has said, it is clear that she is frightened of (any) dogs, and reacts alarmingly (screams, apparently) if approached by a dog. There are numbers of dogs (particularly labs and retrievers) who can be naturally boisterous and ?tigger-ish? but which mean no harm.

Dogs which are not vicious have as much right in parks (assuming their solid excretions are properly collected by their owners) as any other park users. Their boisterousness is part of their pleasure, for many people.

This appears to be a phobia for the OP (irrational fear) ? there are many treatments for phobias, including CBT, and I would suggest it is worth examining them, so that you can share park space with dogs and without excessive anxiety. [it is not ?wrong? to have a phobia, but it can be inconvenient for the phobic, and it is addressable].

Those people with dogs will also be tax and community charge payers. Who will also think they have rights.

The signage and its positioning is not helpful.

Edited to say, cross-posted with message above, which makes some of the same points, Sorry.

[lane lover]

Total overreaction.

Here is the dog that ran at Sue.

[SteveUK1978]

Not on a lead though is it Lane Lover.....

[first mate]

Steve, where is the dog exercise area clearly marked? There are no dedicated dog exercise areas. There is a request that people should exercise their dogs on around the periphery of the park/and on the fields and should keep them on a lead elsewhere but there is nothing to indicate a specific area on which to exercise dogs.

I would add that use of the word 'attacked' where there has been no display of aggression and no physical contact is a little more than 'loose language'. Of course, if the OP replies and says that the dog growled or snarled at her, bared its teeth while lunging at her with aggressive intent, or indeed bit her, then I will retract that statement.

[taper]

I don't think there are any areas on or outside the circular road where you can't let your dog off the lead. Ridiculous that you can't have your dog off the lead in all areas of the park really. If you are afeared of dogs, Dulwich Park really isn't for you.

[first mate]

taper, given that the park should be for all I think it is fair that there are areas where people are asked to keep their dog on a lead. It is common sense really. For instance, I would not let my dog run around offlead where people are playing football or having a picnic (unless I knew he would recall on command every time without fail as well as walk to heel)nor do I let him offlead around the cafe areas, or on the hard paved areas or indeed in and by the children's playground. Once would hope that people don't have to be asked to do this. If everyone adopted these simple and straightforward guidelines I think we would all be a lot happier.

I agree that demanding that all dogs be kept on a lead everywhere and at all times is unreasonable and draconian, it would also affect the welfare of the dogs.

I think that if people are scared of dogs it would be nicer for them if they could visit areas of the park where they know people will keep their dogs on a lead.