dogs off leads petition

[boosboss]

ruffers Wrote:

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

> Laws are made to deal with those

> who break them.

No! Penalties and punishments are established to deal with those who break the law!

[boosboss]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> 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

I assume you then see no distinction between a dog being off lead and a dog running wild? Throwing a ball in a public park for example, for a dog to retrieve, is a dog running wild?

[Asset]

dangerous dogs

The article states Staffs as included in the Dangerous Dogs bracket, may not actually be included in the Dangerous Dogs Act yet but probably soon will be. The Act only states Pit Bull Terrier Type dogs and Japanese Tosas

Pit Bull is a term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and to a lesser extent, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier commonly fall under the category of "pit bull." Wikipedia

[SeanMacGabhann]

Boos boss

are you really this angry? When i said dogs running wild i was referring to an earlier post about dogs running wild meaning without collar or leash. As in. . . The point of the thread. Running to catch a ball? If that is the only exercise the poor dog gets then yeah im against it. Poor mite should be out in the country.

[spadetownboy]

judging by the number of bloody cats that go missing around here maybe they should be put on leads as well!!!

[Eileen]

kingtubby wrote: >

____________________________________________________________

Hi everyone. I think this is a great forum for helping us exchange views on things that affect us all, and thanks to everyone who has contributed. The Peckham Residents' Network (PRN) posted the information for Southwark HOWL as a contribution to an important debate in Southwark about the use and management of our public open spaces, not because I was expecting a particular line. PRN has over 1000 residents on its email list, and information relating to matters of mutual concern in and around the Peckham area are circulated. It tries to be neutral and just circulate info of common concern, rather than push a particular line. In this case the information circulated had been provided by Southwark Howl. (If you would like more info on PRN, you can send me a personal message (PM) by clicking on the link that says Reply via PM.)

It is clear that the ownership of dogs in cities raises issues which people have strong feelings about. All the more important in my view to make sure that we all have a really good understanding of all sides to such issues before decisions are taken. The current issue is how Southwark Council manage the parks and the implication of them having exceeded their authority, in this case by putting up costly notice boards without any powers to enforce them.

Some of the comments on the Southwark HOWL petition web page address these points so I hope that readers of this thread can take a look to get a rounded picture of the issues from all sides - www.ipetitions.com/petition/Southwarkhowl Whatever views we have about dogs maybe we can all share a concern about authorities exceeding their powers and not following due process?

Some of the comments in this thread may be more about the other big issue which is whether people should or shouldn't have dogs in cities. It sounds like that could well be aired nationally so that the benefits of having dogs in cities can be brought out as well as the problems it causes. Some of these problems are being aired in this forum. There are of course huge benefits for humans in having companion animals - significantly reduces some illnesses like heart disease, gives immense support for people living on their own and for the elderly, and teaches children about other living species. Of course that might also start a debate about whether people should be allowed to live alone in the cities or be elderly as it causes these needs for companionship or whether children should have close contact with other animals....

[Red_Cat]

Asset Wrote:

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

> I stand by what I said, it is parents that

> cause children to be scared of dogs in the main.

>

>

Nah, it's those big sharp teeth in the dogs mouth that cause children to be scared of dogs.

Keep all dogs locked up (or on a short leash in public places anyway) so children and cats can run free...

[Asset]

rubbish, how many kids get mauled by dogs in the park? Anyone got the stats?

any way you're obviously biased being a cat person:))

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think the quote from the RSPCA near the end of this article says plenty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4674685.stm

[boosboss]

The amendment to The Dangerous Dogs Act 1997 covers the inclusion of four banned breeds Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog:

the Pit Bull Terrier

the Japanese tosa

the Dogo Argentino

the Fila Brasileiro

The wikapedia discription of Pit Bull type which includes Staffordshire Bull Terriers, may have some credance in the US, but that description is not recognised by any official UK agency, be it government or animal welfare.

Breed specific legislation has already been shown to be flawed, citing court cases brought by the CPS on behalf of Liverpool Police Authority and subsequently dismissed because of the ambiguity of breed or type descriptions and the inability of prosecutors to prove type. Thus rendering the DDA inaffective.

The point of this topic, isn't necessarily about preventing authorities from addressing dogs 'running wild' ,out of control or stray dogs, which the Southwark Animal Warden service ought to deal with (and Yes Southwark does have animal wardens, if you weren't aware)or to prevent authorities from addressing fouling, but is to oppose the introduction of new laws which will affect responsible owners. Laws that were created to allow local authorities to impose regulations without having to go through the previously more stringent bylaw introduction process, as described in the Clean Neighbourhoods Act and Fouling (by dogs)of the Land Act.

Excert from the Countryside Code

By law, you must control your dog so that it does not disturb or scare farm animals or wildlife. On most areas of open country and common land, known as 'access land' you must keep your dog on a short lead on most areas of open country and common land between 1 March and 31 July, and all year round near farm animals.

So, dogs being better of in the countryside than in cities is therefore subjective.

Dog control orders do not apply to working dogs or guide dogs.

and finally

Cats? I don't see how cats are affected by this discussion. I've never seen a cat in our local park or any other park and don't know of any cat owner who clears their cats faeces from public land, that's not saying there isn't any.

[Ganapati]

Asset--Can you please do me a favour? Do a search under "dog attack" on BBC News. You will see that when dogs attack their victims are typically children--ranging from infants to teenangers, and many of those attacks were unprovoked. There are even quotes from a dog trainer in several stories saying that dogs should not be trusted around children period. (I also wonder since you so adamantly believe parents are to blame for causing their children to fear dogs, that if you take credit for every "flaw" that your children might have...)

[ruffers]

As well as actual attacks it is as much the fear of them, even if they as is the outcome in the vast majority of cases don't actually happen.

[Asset]

Ganapati, it is merely an observation. I'm not saying all parents make their children scared of dogs but I have witnessed that behaviour in the park, and I'm not sure I said anything "adamantly" as you put it. Personally I have given my son a fear of wasps due to my own irrational fear of the little buggers, which is the point I was making about dogs. You have blown what I said entirely out of proportion. I'm not saying don't be careful.

I take offence at your comment in brackets and feel that it was uncalled for. I have not said anything to the detriment of you personally and would expect you to show the same courtesy to me.

I agree that young children should never be left alone with any type of dog, all dogs can be dangerous. Most cases of dogs killing children however take place by the family pet inside the family home, not a random dog in the park.

The argument is not about that, it is about the unnecessary leashing of all dogs in public places, which is what I disagree with even though I have no dog and young children.

[snorky]

you really have far too much time on your hands if you set up a petition like this.

Macho dogs like staffies and their ilk are loathsome and should be put down anyway.

[TillieTrotter]

Excuse me Snorky, I grew up with a Staffordshire and imo they are the friendliest dogs around. Its the bad owners that are the problem. You cant make generalisations about dogs as you cant about people.

[*Bob*]

I could happily live without dogs. I only really seem to notice them when they're causing irritation (barking all day, leaving a lovely surprise for the tread of my trainers etc)

But then I'm sure various other people could easily live without cars, children, drugs, computer games, nightclubs, aeroplanes, fast food, organic produce, Big Brother, Religion and The Labour Party.. some of which I happen to think are just fine.

[snorky]

You may be right, but the only staffs/rotters etc that I have had anything to do with were invariably on the edge most of the time - their owners were scum it has to be admitted.

The cold dead eyes of staffies and Pit bulls spook me still.

[TillieTrotter]

Cold dead eyes of a Staffi??? They have eyes like baby seals.

I am petrified of both pit bulls and rottis but it must be said that most I have come across seem to be innately aggressive whilst staffis are incredibly loyal, calm dogs. Excepting of course those that have innately aggressive owners.

[luke dogwalker]

Will reply to this thread when I've calmed down :-S

[SeanMacGabhann]

By your name luke I think we can guess which side you are on.. ;-)

May the force be with you

[*Bob*]

I had the misfortune to be walking through Leicester Square on Saturday Night.

Plenty of cold, dead eyes on display there - with a high threat factor.

Like child-napping, dog attacks are actually pretty rare though. But that still doesn't stop people being afeared of dogs. A lot of owners sometimes tend to forget that there are many people who haven't grown up around dogs and so have little experience of them.

[James]

Well if you agree with this law, why not do the same with children? A minority of them cause havoc in our cities and give the rest a bad name.

So I suggest we have a law that all children and adolescents must be kept on a leash in order to protect other people's enjoyment of public spaces. We could have a similar law for poor people/ehnic minorities/people who live on council estates. Punishing people who break the law isn't good enough - we should punish them before they do anything wrong at all. Much more effective.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Incidentally, if this law gets through I will be breaking it! My well-behaved dog is not going to live the rest of her life outdoors attached to a lead.

[bawdy-nan]

The popularity of Staffies and Staffie crosses is becoming a problem in London. Whilst the dogs, in the right hands, have a reputation (amongst owners) of being very good around humans (they are known as the "nanny" dog) it is true that unless they're properly trained they can be aggressive. Male Staffies, in particular, can be aggressive around other dogs. Its probably this that has led to their being used for dog-fighting. Its a growing problem in some parts of London, though I'm not sure its a major one in Southwark. In some parts of London (Hammersmith, for example) there have been quite a few attacks in parks on people by dogs of the Staffie "type".

I visited a dogs home recently where more than 2/3 of all the dogs being taken in were staffies or staffie crosses. Lots of them were difficult to re-home because they were aggressive.

Personally, I've come across more and more of these dogs and they often seem to be wielded like a weapon or status symbol rather than walked.

I can see that not all dogs are dangerous and I can also see that it is not unreasonable for a child to be scared of a beast with big teeth bearing down upon it. I'd be sad to see a park without a dog, somewhere, running very fast to catch a stick.

I'd like to see less money spent on signage and fences and more money spent on people - old fashioned parkies perhaps.

There are lots of problems with keeping pets in the city. I'd like to see a return to dog-licensing - maybe with a short test on animal welfare and safety attached to it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

James

That's a pretty tasteless and not very helpful comparison.If you mean humans (generally) cause harm to fellow humans then that is most definitely true but you don't have to limit it the socio-economic and groups you mention. Plenty of moneyed white boys cause a lot of mayhem across the land every weekend

Are humans punished in the same way as the dog leash proposal? Well, preventative policies are always being introduced (be it ASBOS or changing licensing hours)

Comparing dogs on a leash to humans on a leash is pretty facile however. I surely needn't explain why?

I do have some sympathy with the dog owners against compulsory leashes, despite most of what I've written on here but only some. Firstly, enough people have expressed their own fear of dogs and have been fairly briskly dismissed by dog-owners. Why do you think there is such a discrepancy?

Dogs are dogs. They are (fairly uniquely amongst domestically owned pets) not allowed to roam freely without an owner for a very good reason. Which you can surely agree with. Given that, is it such a leap to take into account why people have such a reaction?

I would describe the leases as a restriction rather than a punishment. Not ideal but given a wider context (other people, other cities experiences etc) understandable. New Yorkers appear to be able to live with the restrictions there (its notable that by accepting restricted hours while still convinced they are more free than other world cities there is tacit acceptance of the issue)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112007/news/regionalnews/big_apple_parks_going_to_the_dogs_regionalnews_heidi_singer.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3442659.stm

[snorky]

I would sooner see all dogs forced to be leaded up than risk have anyone attacked or mauled becasue the dog is not under the owners full control.

There are many things I disagree with on a personal level , but am able to accomodate restrictions on these becasue I realise there is a responsibility to to others. Im sure your dogs are loverly and playful like kittens, but there are many that are not and this is what the regs are aimed at.

Swallow you pride and think of everyone else- including strangely, non dog owners who alos have a say in this matter.