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.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The dog walker would be paid an hourly fee, say > ?10, while the owner raked in ?70/?80 if eight > dogs were being supposedly walked." > > *yawns* A commercial walker I spoke to received ?28 to walk four dogs for four hours. I can't remember the exact amount but the owner of the dog walking operation receives considerably more than that. Instead of yawning, why don't you ask some of the commercial walkers how much they earn?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 7 dogs being walked. > 8 dogs being walked. > Why do people have to use absolute extremes and > exaggerations to try to make a point - it betrays > the true situation as not being as dire as made > out and being in need of over-cooking to achieve > the agenda intended by the poster. > Let's see the evidence of that wild claim ! > 7/8 dogs my arse. > > BTW - I saw a dog pooing a 3-tonne poo on a grave > you know, I did, I did, honest. It was the size > of a skip lorry, bloody dog walkers ! > (get it ?) The record for me in Nunhead Cemetery is 10 dogs with one walker. The person they usually worked with was sick that day. That person didn't see it as a problem.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then ban professional dog walkers from Nunhead or > license them. Easily done. But don't stop people > who have for years walked their own dogs in > Nunhead with no trouble whatsoever. What FONC > are proposing is not in the public interest. There are many individual dog owners who pay no attention to the requests to keep dogs on lead where requested. There are also many who pay scant attention to what their dog is doing once they let it off lead, allowing for the likelihood of fouling and/or unwanted interactions with people and other dogs in the cemetery. There are also an incredible number of dog walkers who are unable to control/recall their dogs when necessary. PS. Commercial, not professional.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FONC Should fence off the 'sacred' areas from the > area where dogs are allowed to run about off lead. > Dogs can't read signs and it's unrealistic to > expect every dog to obey every command from its > owner, that's just not realistic (however > desirable it may be). > 'Pooing in graves' is the worst possible instance > which is being focussed on, dogs poo everywhere - > and usually at the start of their walk when > they're with the owners from what I've seen. > I think the 'danger to children' angle is also > being over-egged, the webpage reads like EDF > poster (was it 'DadOnAbike' ?) who recently > started a thread with the same kind of thrust. > Be interesting to see what the cemetery becomes if > such proposals materialise. Having seen a child knocked over by a large dog, a toddler fall and land in faeces, and received complaints from many concerned/upset parents and a local school that uses the cemetery for forest school activities, I would suggest the 'danger to children' 'angle' is not being over-egged.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That FONC link is an eye-opener. Very anti-dog. > Is it a problem dogs running over old graves? I > absolutely agree that dogs should be on leads near > the new internments, but dogs on leads elsewhere > is an extreme measure. An eye opener? Wanting people to treat a cemetery with the respect a cemetery deserves? And that is before we get to the random destruction of the flora and fauna in a nature reserve!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, thinking on I wonder what the legal > position is for a council warden (presumably under > instruction from those higher up) to refuse to > assist a local in terms of existing powers on > littering, and instead advise them to fill out a > consultation form online as a solution? > > James, wouldn't the council have a legal duty to > reasonably carry out its role to to keep streets > clean under existing powers? Eh??

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are bye-laws against dog shit already so why > do we need a PSPO? The bye-laws can only be enforced by taking someone to court. It would cost thousands yet would yield penalty fines in the low hundreds at best. Also, a PSPO would enable council officers to penalise dog control issues as well as dog fouling.

Take Note Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Totally agree with siousxisue. A blanket > borough-wide order is both reactionary and > punitive and will not do anything to solve all the > revolting dog mess on our streets and public > spaces. People who don't pick up don't because > they don't want to - or are too busy to notice it > happening in the first place. far more patrols > needed. > > Also when was a resident, "attacked by a pack of > dogs"? (As per the Southwark Survey) Surely this > terrible event would have made the news? > > Come on.... As was clearly stated in the 'Why introduce a PSPO?' section, it says "Residents have reported being attacked and frightened by 'packs of dogs'." This isn't the Council just deciding to pick on dog owners, it is the Council responding to complaints and concerns from members of the public. Of the complaints listed, I have personally witnessed "people being frightened by packs of dogs" (their perception. A dog owner may consider it 'just playing') on several occasions, "a child being knocked over by a dog" on one occasion, and dealt with "attacks on animals within Southwark?s Cemeteries and parks and open spaces" on more occasions than I can remember. The latter includes serious dog on dog attacks. I can assure you it isn't much fun standing guard over a mutilated fox or squirrel in the middle of January for up to two hours waiting for the RSPCA to arrive.?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Additionally, these new powers are being blatantly > abused by councils elsewhere to make money. Powers > to fine are contracted out to private companies. A > documentary on Monday evening ( Panorama?) showed > people being fined for not picking up dog poo, > after they had done so and for myriad spurious > littering offences- all leading to heavy fines and > a potential criminal record. > > Proceeds from fines are split between company and > council for the first four fines a day. Anything > after that goes to the company. Company employees > could earn a bonus by issuing more fines a day and > each had minimum targets. Secret filming showed > one of the in house trainers saying the purpose > was to make money. > > As others say, the council already have the power > to fine for littering, including dog poo. The > purpose of this whole exercice is to try to find > other ways to extract money from locals...much the > same for totally unnecessary double yellow lines I > suspect. Locals should resist with all their > might. Scaremongering again FM? All proceeds from fines issued by Southwark Council staff go directly to central government, not to the Council and certainly not to the staff issuing the fines. If someone pays a fine they are issued with, they will not have a criminal record. The penalty notice (fine)is issued as an alternative to taking someone to court for a minor offence. It is considerably cheaper for both parties and has the added benefit of not topping up any solicitor's bank balance.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nxjen, > > Yes it would be a lot of space but if Southwark > really has no interest in a total ban in some > areas why offer it as an option? Anyway, I think > people need to be very careful how they answer the > survey as I really do think it is skewed in favour > of getting as tough as possible on all dog owners > as a means to try to control a few. It really isn't "a few" though. Yes, there are a few deliberately irresponsible dog walkers, who should face the toughest possible sanctions. For every one of them there are also many who feel they are responsible dog walkers, but have little or no ability to control their dog(s), pay little or no attention to what they are doing (especially in parks and open spaces, where they tend to feel more relaxed, hence the amount of dog faeces found in such places, directly attributable to people who are chatting/walking ahead of the dogs, texting, clueless as to the whereabouts of the dog(s) etc.............), and have little or no consideration for other people (including other dog walkers) who may not want to be barked at, greeted with muddy (or even shitty) paw prints on their clothing, have their food snatched away or their kid's football burst. Nor is there much consideration for the wildlife and flora populating our parks and open spaces. The dogs aren't to blame when they kill or destroy things. It is the owners/walkers who think or say "oh it's just dogs being dogs" like it isn't a problem. A lot of the people I have described above are lovely, friendly middle class types who would swear blind they pick up every poop their doggy does and can't see what the problem is when it takes them 20 minutes to get their dog back on lead after it has run/jumped into a dog free/on lead area "Oh he's always doing that the little scamp."