Dog Control Consultation

[Dadonabike]

Hi everyone

This is my first post as I'm relatively new to the area, but I would like to highlight Southwark council's new consultation about dogs in our local parks:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/lets-talk-about-dogs

I'm a Dad and have also been a dog owner, so hopefully I can see both sides of the debate. However I have had some pretty nasty experiences in the local parks, in particular Peckham Rye and Nunhead cemetery.

The problems as I see them:

1) There is too much dog poo which hasn't been picked up. Every week my kid ends up with poo on them, which is disgusting and dangerous. I know lots of owners are responsible, but sadly lots are not. Some stiffer penalties would be good.

2) There are far too many professional dog walkers with large groups of dogs off lead - especially in Nunhead cemetery. It is extremely difficult to properly control very large groups of dogs and pick up after them, especially in dense woodland. Last week there was a lady in there walking seven animals all off lead! Large groups of dogs run in a pack and put children and other animals at risk. My child has been knocked over and we have had several near misses, which has made us wary and taken a lot of the enjoyment out of visiting. Four dogs seems a safe maximum number for one person; four dogs per walker is the limit within Lewisham. As it's also a nature reserve and working cemetery, it would seem sensible to keep all dogs on leads.

3) The wardens have little power to enforce the rules. Very often in Peckham Rye there are large dogs off lead by the children's play areas and pond where there are clearly numerous signs to have dogs on lead. I have often seen the warden come by and ask people to put their dogs on a lead, but the next day the same people are back with their dogs off lead again.

If you have time please fill in the short survey, whatever side of the debate you are on. For what it's worth I'm not advocating banning dogs altogether from the cemeteries, nor am I anti dog-walkers. I just feel that it would be nice for our parks and open spaces to be safer and more welcoming, especially for little ones. Nunhead cemetery in particular needs some urgent action before a child is seriously hurt.

All the best.

[taper]

Not sure I'd support dogs on leads in the areas of Nunhead and Camberwell Old cemeteries which aren't used for new burials. Seems reasonable otherwise.

[tiddles]

Hi there

I have filled in the survey - which I cannot help but be suspicious of the wording. The reason being that the council tend to crack a nut with a sledgehammer - only a year or so ago, there was a suggestion to put all dogs on leads in all southwark parks due to bad experiences north of the borough. I totally agree with picking up dog mess (which I thought was law anyway) and putting on the lead when asked by the park warden, and also putting on lead in the designated areas (by the pond) and to be excluded from the children's play area (very clearly designated). It would be a dreadful shame for dogs to be excluded from nunhead cemetery. As always, the type of people who refuse to behave responsibly are the types who will ignore any online questionnaire, let alone abide by the general rules. I understand where you are coming from Dadonabike, but I fear a draconian response from Southwark. (give them the sniff of a double yellow line and they go mad and make life as tricky as they can) As a daily (morning) peckham dog walker (just mine) the behaviour you are suggesting is what I see everyday anyway. Perhaps the later in the day dog walkers are a bit different? I suppose my fear is that Southwark Council get involved and it turns into a ???? nightmare.

[siousxiesue]

There's no mentioning of the dog on dog violence which has been seen on these pages too, I put that in the comments section at the end

[first mate]

Wardens already have powers to fine, so why don't they?

[KidKruger]

hmmm...

not sure about 'dogs run in packs', 'children at risk', wording seems overly keen on painting a picture which I just don't see (on 3x dog walks per day, for the last 3 years, in all places mentioned above and others). Dogs aren't blind, just running into people - there may be the odd collision but that's what happens when you mix dogs/people in parks (or people/cars on streets). BTW Nunhead Cemetery looks to me like the real people patrolling it are the dogwalkers (private and professional), I'm convinced their perpetual presence is a primary reason there is limited vandalism and other. more serious, misdemeanours infrequent. I don't think I'm being a negligent parent taking my 3 kids and older relatives there frequently, I don't see a dog danger to kids there at all. You can't just change everything around you to suit yourself when it's been working fairly well for decades, if you've recently moved to the area why wouldn't you just wait a couple of years to build-up an accurate picture to support your 'case'.

I don't support this proposition of 'Dog Bronx' at all.

dog poo - yes obviously it needs to be picked-up.

dogs off leads - there will always be a few and wardens need to enforce daily and be able to escalate after repeated occurences.

[first mate]

KK I agree. Every single issue already covered in law of some sort snd penalties can be applied...so question is why existing law not being utilised?

[taper]

You're absolutely right that dog walkers are vital to the safety and use of our parks. So why have Southwark returned to this issue over and over again, rather than just enforce current measures. I've heard that a particular local councillor has very strong (antipathetic) views on dogs in parks and Nunhead cemetery. Is this right?

[Penguin68]

The requirement in the survey to know my religion and sexual orientation seems unnecessary on a survey about dog management. Since this is a self chosen survey response (no sampling) there can be no accusation of intentional bias in recruiting respondents - and clearly these facts are likely to be irrelevant to any analysis. Sometimes the dog-whistle (see what I did there) need to include this sort of data in surveys where it is wholly irrelevant really really annoys me.

[James Barber]

This is truly bizarre. Such a survey/consultation was carried out about 18 months ago. We've been repeatedly told the analysis hadn't been undertaken for lack of resources.

So they've taken a similar level of resource to run a new consultation broadly repeating the exercise!

Hi P68,

I'll ask why these details are being asked for.

[nxjen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The requirement in the survey to know my religion

> and sexual orientation seems unnecessary on a

> survey about dog management. Since this is a self

> chosen survey response (no sampling) there can be

> no accusation of intentional bias in recruiting

> respondents - and clearly these facts are likely

> to be irrelevant to any analysis. Sometimes the

> dog-whistle (see what I did there) need to include

> this sort of data in surveys where it is wholly

> irrelevant really really annoys me.

Totally agree and I actually commented on the survey that requesting this information was totally unnecessary and even divisive.

[Abe_froeman]

You can';t be that surprised James. Southwark loves going over old ground again and again - see the non-issue of traffic on Melbourne Grove for starters...

[Penguin68]

Hi P68,

I'll ask why these details are being asked for.

It'll be quite simple. The Council has a standard demographic and diversity set of questions which they boilerplate (without thought) into all surveys. That's simpler than actually exercising thought in choosing questions which might remotely be relevant, and no one gets fired for using the full set.

A sad comment on laziness trumping thought, and why so many people's jobs can be replaced by machines.

[first mate]

Agree with comments in the online document. I am also interested to know where Southwark's nature reserves are and what constitutes a designated children's play area? I am guessing the latter means a specially fenced off children's playground?

[nxjen]

Here's a link to Southwark Council's website where the nature reserves are listed. There are seven in total

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/two-new-nature-reserves-for-rotherhithe

[first mate]

Nxjen, thankyou.

Actually, I see that the online consultation refers to children's play areas only and does not say designated, so not sure what that means. I also think it is a shame that the survey asks only if dogs should be kept on leads or totally excluded from areas like Sydenham Woods and One Tree Hill. There is no option to keep things as they are but to utilise existing laws against offenders. A biased and poorly designed survey.

[tiddles]

Yes it all seems a bit woolly - intentionally so I would think - 'near' children's play areas (not in) I would think it a real shame not to be able to visit Sydenham woods. why are they doing this again, as James Barber pointed out, after the last time where it was decided that perhaps things could stay as they are. I also felt the questions about my personal life intrusive, but I filled in anyway simply so as to get my point of view across.

[sunbob]

I too feel that this post is biased and suspicious. Dadonabike must have been extremely unlucky to have so many dog poo and dog bowling over incidents. I personally have taken my children to PRP almost daily for the last 8 years and have never had one. And we don't often get as far across the park as the dog free areas.

I agree with others here that dog walkers, along with parents of pre schoolers keep the parks safe and alive during the working day, at times when they would otherwise be isolated and vulnerable. I don't want a biased and preset agenda on dogs to endanger the wonderfully lively public spaces we have here.

[first mate]

I've said it many times but a far greater menace is status dgs walked off lead on street pavements. Why not focus on that? I can see that FPNs delivered to the owner of the family dog mght be easy pickings for an anti dog council.

I too would like to see dogs put on leads in certain areas and for poo to be picked up and dog walkers limited to four dogs but this survey offers complete exclusion of dogs from large areas of public space as an option. That makes me suspicious of the real motives behind the consultation. I would be furious if I was barred from walking my dog in many of the borough's public spaces.

Dadonabike, as he says a first time poster and new to the area, seems to have been incredibly unlucky in his experience of dogs in the area.

[KidKruger]

Let's get dad on a bike back on this thread.

I think this thread smells.

Can anyone with any sense just imagine how many very frustrated leashed dogs would be walking about - all that pent-up energy from no exercise ? I think that would present more challenging events than currently exist today.

I'll call dad on a bike out now as a charlatan.

If there's a 'survey', please let's fill it in making these exact points very clear.

[alex_b]

I agree with first mate that the dog poo on pavements is a far greater irritant (especially with a pushchair on narrow pavements) than in the parks. It's strange that the council seem so disinterested in policing that and other existing rules.

[first mate]

After today's and other recent reports of attacks on people in parks with perpetrators using bikes to get away, the council should focus on this type of crime. Doubt anyone would suggest a total ban on bikes in parks or that bikes should always be hand wheeled not ridden through parks.

[Mystic Mog]

first mate Wrote:

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

> After today's and other recent reports of attacks

> on people in parks with perpetrators using bikes

> to get away, the council should focus on this type

> of crime. Doubt anyone would suggest a total ban

> on bikes in parks or that bikes should always be

> hand wheeled not ridden through parks.

My sentiments entirely!

[Penguin68]

The park is a brilliant (and generally safe) place for young people to learn to cycle - I would hate to see that stopped, although perhaps the parts where they could ride could be sealed from the exits so that others couldn't use the parks to ride and get away.

But maybe it is time to consider the dangers that two-wheeled thugs can offer park users - maybe it is time to focus on policing things like this, rather than focusing on dog crime (indeed focusing on extending the definition of dog crime). If a questionnaire had been set-up which asked the question - which should we be focusing on - cracking down on dogs or thugs - I wonder what the responses would look like? 'Dogs' would be only getting a look-in once 'thugs' were a thing of the past, I'm guessing.

[Lollipop]

Very strange survey but I have filled it in. I am a regular user of Peckham, Dulwich and Nunhead with my two dogs.

I do find it very irritating when owners do not pick up poo. I have had dogs for years and have always picked up poo. It's not that difficult to do. I agree with first mate that dog poo on the pavement is completely beyond the pale!

And as a regular user of Dulwich Park, I find the number of cyclists using it for fast training quite scary. A saw a young child nearly knocked over by a fast cyclist just last week. Mum was upset but the cyclist didn't stop. I cycle as well as walk dogs, but would never race through a park.

I think a question on what other issues annoy people in parks might have been useful! They may discover that people have quite a few other concerns.