nununoolio

Not sure who changed the thread title to something that was inaccurate but please don't do it again

Deleted as someone (admin?) keeps tampering with the thread title.

You could always buy some.

> Apart from the new rules may not allow well > behaved dogs walking with their owner to be off > lead. Only in cemeteries and nature reserves, not all parks.

> You did not say whether you think the council > would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to a > private enforcement company? This is what has > happened elsewhere. Not heard that this is in the pipeline or even being considered. I will begin to feel distinctly nervous if I do hear anything!

Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a lady training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I took some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I thought might need her services. No idea why she stopped, but it certainly wasn't to do with the council.

d walker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nununoolio Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > people will miss having dog walkers/ > > > owners keeping nature reserves safe for all > to > > > enjoy, > > > > Tell that to the foxes, squirrels etc........ > > And if only the flowers could talk. > > > Dog walkers are out walking daily come rain or > shine so nununoolio they do in fact keep our parks > and cemeteries a safe place to go, often when I'm > out if weather is poor it's only dog walkers you > see. I agree people need to be responsible and > control their dogs and clean up after them, > irresponsible dog walkers wont obey rules anyway, > so as usual the responsible are penalised for the > actions of the minority. > > If the "flowers could talk", they'd probably also > tell you they get trampled on by small children, > but we wouldn't then say lets ban small children > as majority parents are responsible it's just few > irresponsible parents. I would have agreed with your first paragraph up until about five years ago, but there are now so many more people populating our parks and cemeteries these days, even on the most miserable of winter days. Dog walkers yes, but also people exercising, parents with kids, nature lovers, photographers etc..... I would agree that it was most likely that dog walkers have brought this about by making the parks feel safe in the first place, but I would now venture that often, there are way too many dogs being walked at times, and possibly by some people who struggle to control the animals in their care. As for kids and flowers, don't get me started! I have had words with many parents who just smile as their children stamp on or kick flowers, or in one case, rip out handfuls of crocuses to give to their parents! Nonetheless, this is far outweighed by the trampling, scratching and chewing of many more dogs that destroys/erodes the path borders, especially noticeable in the nature reserves. Not blaming the dogs, but the owners/walkers who don't even seem to notice or care about what is happening in front of them, nor the purpose of the location they are in.

And who stopped the dog training? Was it the Council? News to me if it was.

Although I do have to ask First Mate this. In what way is pointing out the council can't afford to take on several court cases 'scaremongering'. They would be criticised for wasting public money.

I would post back to First mate with all the quotes but it might break the internet!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nunoolio, > > That may be the situation now but find out a > little more about how these new powers are being > used elsewhere. Will do. > I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a > magistrates court but surely the purpose is to > deter repeat offences not raise money? Under > existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary > conviction and they can also be removed from the > park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs > dangerously out of control- and yes that could be > a matter of perception. The point I was making about the byelaws is that it would cost the council thousands to take people to court. Nothing to do with making money but to do with not having the budget or resources for so many legal actions. > Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get > them? I imagine it would be wardens/enforcement officers. > Of course, one quite simple solution to some of > this would be for the council to allow some dog > training sessions within the parks, a great way to > educate and remind the public about how their dogs > should behave in the real world, but the council > stopped any use of the park for training long > ago. Not sure that is the case. There is a dog training group in the north of the borough. I don't think the council would be able to fund you to do it but you should apply for a licence and see what happens. > The council seems not the least bit concerned > about dogs walked offlead on the public streets. This is a criminal matter. "Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence for a dog to be on a designated road (ie. a public road) without being held on a lead." Not something the Council has powers to deal with. This may change with the introduction of a PSPO. > > See http://manifestoclub.info/psposreport/

Take Note Wrote: > Nunoolio all you did was quote what I did - I'm > well aware of what it says on the site; I have > read it, too. What I asked was where is the > evidence of residents being attacked by packs of > dogs? I listed incidents I have witnessed or had reported to me. > Also, I get that some people are afraid of dogs. > When dogs are playing they run around, sometimes > barking. Have you ever stood in a primary school > playground at lunchtime? Children run around > screaming and playing - sometimes they play fight > and knock each other over. Like children, some > dogs are full of energy and need to let off steam > - obviously in a controlled way - this can't be > done on a lead. > I'm afraid of lots of things: But that is MY issue > - no-one else is to blame. I agree dogs should be able to run around and play/let off steam. I'm not sure I agree that a cemetery or nature reserve would be a suitable location and certainly not somewhere that is both of these things.

people will miss having dog walkers/ > owners keeping nature reserves safe for all to > enjoy, Tell that to the foxes, squirrels etc........ And if only the flowers could talk.

angel_lemarchand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I pick up my dogs poop, as well as other people's > dog poop when I come across it. When/ if dog > walkers stop using this space, due to the > unpleasant behavior they face daily, and are > replaced by drug addicts, drunks, or people up to > no good, people will miss having dog walkers/ > owners keeping nature reserves safe for all to > enjoy, service provided free of charge of course. > People need to consider the benefits provided by > dog owners. Unfortunately, some people are > irresponsible, but those people will continue to > ignore any new rules set up, will continue to not > clean up after their dogs, will not exercise them > properly, will not train them properly etc... Oh dear!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't the issue one of control, not numbers? I > have seen someone walking eight (albeit small) > dogs on linked leads - 4 a hand, in a very > controlled manner, and someone else incapable of > looking after just 2. Dog walkers should be doing > a good job - controlling however many dogs they > can control and walking them sufficiently to be > exercised. If they can control 8 and be paid (as > it were) 8 times an hourly rate for just one - > well good on them. If they can't and if the dogs > they aren't controlling then act up (chasing other > dogs or people, fouling in the wrong places etc.) > then actions should be taken against them. This, in a nutshell. A PSPO will enable the Council to deal with those unable or unwilling to control their dog(s), whatever number of hounds they have.