dogs off leads petition

[Eileen]

This information, from a new residents' group called HOWL, is posted by the Peckham Residents' Network

____________________________________________________________

PLEASE sign our online petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/Southwark

howl

Southwark dog lovers have formed a lobby group called HOWL (Hounds Off

lead Welfare Lobby) to persuade Southwark Council to step back from

imposing a blanket policy that will condemn all dogs in the borough,

regardless of size or temperament,?to live the rest of their lives attached to

a lead. Virtually nobody in the borough, least of all the people who walk

their dogs in the parks every day, had any idea that this was coming over

the horizon. The first we knew about it was when new signs popped up all

over our parks stating that all dogs had to be kept on leads everywhere,

with the exception of a few little 'dog exercise' areas in a handful of parks.

Astonishingly, the Parks Department erected the signs without going

through the correct legal process of changing the existing byelaw, which

states that 'All Dogs Must Be Kept Under Control' (a very sensible law in

our opinion). We discovered that they had been so confident that they

would sneak through the change in the law without proper consultation that

they went ahead and spent ?36,000 on this signage PRIOR to any

changes being ratified.

?

There have been no substantial reasons put forward to justify this universal

sentence being imposed upon all dogs and their owners, save the fact that

the antisocial individuals who own those rather antisocial dogs?sometimes

vandalise park property and don't clear up after their animals.

We all condemn this, but these are issues which can and should be dealt

with using existing legislation.

Why should the law-abiding majority with mild-mannered happy dogs be

penalised for the sins of the antisocial few? It's like saying that all humans

should be locked up because a few of the species commit GBH. There are

antisocial elements in all the different park user groups, so why have the

dog owners been singled out for mass punishment?

?

We believe that any changes in the law regarding dogs on leads should be

done on a park by park basis by the local regular users, and not imposed

as a blanket policy across the whole borough.

?

We beg the help and support from all people who believe in fair play and

common sense. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME. The Southwark Executive

will be making the decision on June 19.

?

PLEASE sign our online petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/Southwark

howl

?

If you want to know more details about our efforts so far we have a

myspace spot on: www.myspace.com/Southwarkhowl

??

[spadetownboy]

well if it stops them crapping all over the place im all for it

[Ganapati]

I have to say as a mother of 2 young children it can be intimidating going to the park and having dobermans, rottweillers and staffis off leash running at you. I'm actually a dog person, and when I see such dogs coming I try to round up my children to get them out of the way, but I've had dogs sticking their face in the pram and jumping on my oldest--she's now terrified of ALL dogs. There has to be a balance, but unfortunately this is a situation where you depend upon the sense of the owner--which in some cases is totally lacking.

[Asset]

I will sign the petition, I agree. Most dogs are perfectly able to be off the leash without being a danger to anyone.

Being on a lead is not going to stop them pooing and will not compel the owners to clean it up.

Unfortunately it is usually the attitude of parents that makes children scared of dogs, scooping them out of the way whenever a dog comes near.

There is already a law which states that Staffordshire type dogs must be on a lead in public places but that is ignored.

[ruffers]

Asset Wrote:

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

> I will sign the petition, I agree. Most dogs are

> perfectly able to be off the leash without being a

> danger to anyone.

>

I won't, the law sounds like an excellent idea to me. As for the "most dogs" comment I don't see how that's relevant. Laws are made to deal with those who break them.

[Asset]

it's relevant as the majority of dogs and owners are being punished for the few who have dangerous dogs.

The people who have dangerous dogs will most likely ignore the law anyway. Leaving the majority with perfectly safe controllable dogs unable to let them have a decent run in the park.

It's a case of health and safety gone mad - again.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think everyone knows the type of dog and owner which fall into the "dangerous" category but even then that's not the whole picture

I have owned dogs and know many perfectly loveable ones and yet. And yet

They are powerful beasts and many good owners have a blind-spot towards bad/intimidating behaviour by otherwise fine animals.

Just walking down the street and passing 2 people, both with dogs on lashes, both responsible owners and still I get the heebeegeebees when the 2 dogs kick off at each other. If I was a young kid walking near by I would be petrified

Asset makes a good point about dangerous dog owners being the ones most likely to flout the law - but then that's true of most laws. I'm no health & safety nut (I don't wear seat belts if I can help it, hate the idea of enforced helmets for cyclists etc) but in this case I think it's the right move... sorry

[fractionater]

I think that people who own "dangerous" type dogs should have to undergo some form of basic dog training/handling skills & and pass a test first. Similar to a CBT for scooters or Cycling proficiency test.

[fractionater]

I remember when I was young - about 7ish, playing in the park with my mates. and I got chased by a big dog... luckily I manged to make it up to the top of a nearby climbing frame! - it scared the sh1t out of me + I was terrified of all dogs for a while after that incident (ok now though!). I think the owner found it quite funny at the time too!

[Ganapati]

"Unfortunately it is usually the attitude of parents that makes children scared of dogs, scooping them out of the way whenever a dog comes near."

Asset--Do you actually have children? If I see a potentially dangerous dog coming my way and I'm alone I STILL get out of the way. Rottweillers and dobermans and staffis scare me, and I am sure many others. I do not do this if I see a lab or a golden retriever. It's called risk assessment. As for making my children scared of dogs, I suppose its better to wait and see what these dogs potentially do to them? The dog that put my daughter off all dogs was an English bull dog that I myself thought nothing of. It seemed to me I was being a responsible parent taking them out of the path of dangeorus dogs, rather than waiting for the dog owners to do so. As with all things child related these days, seems as if you're either damned for "wrapping them up in cotton wool," or having some appalling sense of entitlement that your offspring can and should do anything. But I digress.

[SeanMacGabhann]

My parents certainly didn't make me afraid of dogs - they loved 'em and we had loads around the place. Nope it was the darn dogs that put me off dogs eventually.

[Thomas]

Hi.

I like some dogs, but think its right that in a park/public place with other people around, they should be kept on a lead. It seems that all dog lovers believe that everybody loves dogs, which isn't the case. I know a few people who are not so keen on them coming up to them etc..

Also, I understand that not all dog owners are like this, but I hate it when your walking over the park/down the road and you come across dog poo!!! If the dog is on the lead, the owner should be able to see that the dog has left something, and then be able to clear it up - whereas if the dogs are running free, its unlikely the owner will see what the dog has done. I think its very inconsiderate to others when people leave the dog mess around - its their pet so they should tidy up after them.. As I say, I understand that most people do tidy up, but there are still a large number of people who don't bother!

By all means enjoy having a dog, but I don?t think it should affect people who are not so interested in them..

This is just my opinion.

Thomas.

[Amelie]

If Southwark really has not complied with the legal requirements then this should be notified to the Borough Solicitor, the Chief Executive and the Leader; and they should be asked to put the situation right.

As for dogs off leads, dogs do need exercise and if there is not enough space in the 'exercise areas' then dogs are going to be made ill by it and surely this would be grounds to prosecute Southwark for cruelty? It looks to me as though this has really not been properly thought through.

[Thomas]

Regarding the 'dogs need exercise' comment - why not go cycling with the dog.. I've seen people in Dulwich Park cycling with their dog (but still on the lead). That way, everyone can be happy!

[sian]

I have had several nasty experiences being chased or slobbered over by the canine equivalent of 4x4s during runs in Dulwich Park while their owners watch and say "he doesn't mean any harm". I now won't run there early on Sunday mornings when they are all out. Yes to leads.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I agree dogs need exercise. Absolutely. So probably best consider the environment one lives in before getting a dog?

legally there is nothing stopping anyone who lives in a flat getting a dog and keeping it indoors all day while the owner is at work. And i know people who do. But that doesnt make it a good idea

if the only chance a dog gets to exercise freely is when its owner unleashes it in a public park.. Well.. You get the gist

[Southwark Howl]

Hi Thomas,

Totally understand about the poo issue. All the decent and responsible dog owners in the borough hate it too. Unfortunately it is often the people who do have their dogs on leads who are the greatest offenders as these are the people who own dogs for all the wrong reasons and give them very little exercise and don't let them off the lead because they are too volatile to be off the lead in open spaces with other dogs around. Where I live you see these people pop in to the park with these dodgy looking animals strung up on their leads, use the park as a public lavatory and then leave. Sadly there are people who don't give a damn about other people who use the parks (or other people in general), as are there in all the other groups of people who use our parks, like the bottle-smashing kids and the homicidal cyclists.

By making all dogs from poodle to spaniel be on a lead won't solve the poo issue at all I'm afraid.

[Asset]

To answer Ganapati - yes I do have children, I have tried to ensure that they do not have an irrational fear of dogs by not freaking out every time a dog comes near them. As for risk assesment, I have known several grumpy labradors and one extremely friendly rottweiler so don't let appearances fool you.

I would love to have a dog but if this new law comes in it's pointless as I can't see myself running after the ball with the dog on the lead!

A move to the country maybe in the future where I will have lots of dogs running around, oh hang on - the law will probably cover them as well - what about sheepdogs? how's that going to work?

[skwirt]

I totally agree with Eileen - why should the vast majority of responsible (and poop scoopping) dog owners have their dogs punished as a result of the selfish behaviour of a few people! It is ridiculous to inflict a punishment for what mighthappen. It is another foolish knee jerk reaction law brought in by people who are too weak to confront the real issues in the community and end up alienating the wrong people.

hmmm not impressed (6)

skwirt

[SeanMacGabhann]

Skwirt

"why should the vast majority of responsible (and poop scoopping) dog owners have their dogs punished as a result of the selfish behaviour of a few people"

On libertarian grounds I'm with you with regards to your argument but there are 2 caveats: (to my mind anyway)

1) There are laws which relate directly to behaviour which impacts on ourselves (eg helmets when cycling) and laws which relate to behaviour which has impact on others (eg smoking in confined spaces). Many smokers are very considerate to non-smokers and it's a shame they are impacted by new legislation but on balance it's the right thing to do. I think this proposal outlined fall into the later category

2) The phrases "vast majority" and "few" are convenient words which might be mathematically true but still mask the bigger picture. As I've said before the "few" are easily recognisable but there are a significant number in between who consider themselves responsible but are oblivious to the behavior their animal has on others - be it running wild, or barking late at night

One of the reasons I no longer keep dogs is that I live in London - that has an effect on the animal (regardless of any laws) and on neighbours. It's easy to jump to the "nanny-state" argument to defend one's own interests but it is equally worthwhile thinking about the bigger picture. Just because one can't see any adverse impact on others doesn't make it true (another good example of this is loud music/tv's in flats - it's perfectly possible to be within legal noise limits but if it's having an impact on neighbours is it justifiable to say you don't have to do anything?)

It's interesting why people view the proposal as "punishment" - on who - the dog or owner. As I've said,if the only excercise the dog has is to run wild in a park the maybe it's the owner punishing the dog

[Ganapati]

Asset--who exactly is "freaking out"? My daughter sees plenty of dogs--both sets of grandparents have them, but when she sees one she does not know she is still very fearful of them. Is it irrational for a 3 year old to fear a creature bigger and stronger than herself? What am I supposed to do--force her to confront them each and every time? I don't think it's "freaking out" to walk away from a potentially bad situation. Besides that, I've seen DOGS being roughed up by other dogs off leash. Just the other day I saw a woman walking her three King Charles spaniel--one was a puppy. A staffi came sniffing at them and started snapping at the puppy. I made a sharp exit with my 2 children and all I could hear behind me was the woman swearing at the dog and her puppy yelping in pain. Anyway, should this law come into effect--who is actually going to enforce it? The council doesn't have enough manpower to police this sort of situation.

[kingtubby]

Very interesting thread as I think the response from the forum contribbutors was not was Eileen was expecting i.e there are people who do not like dogs and in particular think they are a hazard in the city.

Personally I agree with the posts from Sean and the one from Amelie I think must have been a joke. I have been attacked many times from dogs, and not all of them fighting type mutts. In many of these cases the owners either say 'He/she is not normally like that' or just try to laugh it off. I don't think dog owners in the city appreciate the apprehension their canine can induce in some people. The city is not the place for dogs and ED which does tend to have small gardens, would just make the dog a bit more frustrated.

For what it is worth, on my daily run around Peckham Rye common, I took a note of the number of dogs exercising in the park: 8. Number in the dog exercise area: 0 (dogs & dog owners of all ages/sex/types). The dog exercise area does look extremely large to me.

[Asset]

Oh God Ganapati - stop taking it so personally. I never at any point said you, you have just taken it on yourself that I'm attacking you. Get over it. I stand by what I said, it is parents that cause children to be scared of dogs in the main.

I'm entitled to an opinion as are you.

[boosboss]

kingtubby Wrote:

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

> > For what it is worth, on my daily run around

> Peckham Rye common, I took a note of the number of

> dogs exercising in the park: 8. Number in the dog

> exercise area: 0 (dogs & dog owners of all

> ages/sex/types). The dog exercise area does look

> extremely large to me.

What dog exercise area? Peckham Rye DOESN'T have a dog exercise area!

As has already been said, this new law will not address the issues it is alledgedly designed to do. It will be virtually inenforcable and create a greater level of animosity between park users. If and that's a big if, this does become a policy by Southwark Council, the parks will become places where many people would not wish to go, simply because the very prescence of dog owners is in itself a crime deterrent. So rather than dodge the odd dog poo, parents who do take the risk of going into the parks will be dodging the discarded syringes of the drug users that will take up residence and run a greater risk of encountering the occasional flasher or worse. Dog walkers make parks safer for all and confining them to specific areas will without doubt make parks less safe. Southwark Council had a campaign last year called 'Flag the Poo', Peckham Rye Park and Common was shown to be the cleanest in the borough, with far fewer deposits than expected. Education is what's needed, more poo bins and an efficent warden service to manage current legislation.

Southwark council have also decided to amend or discard other bylaws, such as cycling in parks, effectively turning all parks into velodromes, rather than investing in and maintaining proper cycle routes.

The city is a completely suitable environment for people and their companion animals to co-exist with the general population without resorting to ridiculous measures such as are being proposed. Why has the anti-dog brigade not been lobbying local councils to introduce these measures before? Why? Because the whole issue has been borne on the back of the farcical Dangerous Dogs Act and some recent tragic incidents, most of which occured in homes, citing the death of a child in Liverpool. Last year Southwark Council received approximately sixty dog related complaints, of which bites fell into single figures. This is in comparison to an average of 712 walks per dog owner per year (this adds up to an incredible amount of walks throughout the borough by all it's dog walkers, which I hasten to add are mostly responsible).

Yes have legislation, but we already have adequate legislation, it's just not being policed properly. Campaign for a decent parks and street warden service before attempting to persecute the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible few.

[boosboss]

Asset Wrote:

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

> There is already a law which states that

> Staffordshire type dogs must be on a lead in

> public places but that is ignored.

Sorry, but you're confusing Staffordshire Bull Terriers with Pit Bull Terriers (Dangerous Dogs Act). There is no law as such in reference to Staffs.