Dog Control Consultation

[first mate]

Hi Lollipop,

Perhaps those with knowledge of research methodology can reply, but the way the survey is designed seems to ensure that these DCOS get put through because the only options are to choose greater controls or outright bans. There is no option to use existing legislation. For instance wardens can already issue fines for failing to bag and remove poo. I have never seen or heard of a fine issued though.

The only way to avoid the skewing in the survey is to tactically lie and choose the option that says dog poo doesn't bother you etc, etc. The fact is there is already law in place to cover all the issues, but it is not enforced. My hunch the Council would simply prefer the simplicity of outright bans.

My other point about dogs offlead on streets is this does present dangers to children, people and other dogs. In this situation most other dogs will be on the lead and being randomly approached by an offlead dog can lead to all sorts of problems. I simply cannot understand why the council with its fleet of community wardens on mopeds does not crack down on this real issue- but they will be too busy policing parking offences, I guess.

[DandySandy]

I agree with the initial post. I don't understand why dog owners feel that everyone should be as enamoured with their pup as they are. I have had a greedy labrador bite my child (yes, bite!), who was in a buggy, as he took food from his hand - the well spoken, well presented man, whose dog it was, barely said a word before he hurried away, whilst my child was distressed. I have had another dog, whilst my child was again in a buggy, try to jump into my buggy, as the dog was clearly over excited and agitating other dogs and passers-by. When I told the dog owner to stop her conversation and put her dog on a lead, as the signs stated, to calm him down, she told me I shouldn't be on the grass area where dogs run around and should be on the path!! I have again had to try and protect my children, from dogs who were obviously completely ignoring their dog walker, who had lost control. Each time, my children whom I frequently remind to not approach dogs they do not know, as an acknowledgement that the parks are shared spaces, the courtesy has not been returned. Social rejects come in all manner of the demographic rainbow. Just because you have yet to witness anti social dog behaviour, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps without a visible warden presence in parks, opportunities like the one presented in this instance, are the few times those affected by this can have a voice. Also, please do not use other horrific incidences in the park as a means to derail this conversation, all misdemeanours are a nuisance and deserve to be dealt with accordingly, the existence of this thread does not negate the seriousness of other issues!

[Phlox]

first mate Wrote:

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

> 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.

I agree with all of this. There are a large number of idiots letting their dogs run off lead on the pavements. I regularly see people with usually more than one dog not picking up their dog's poo as they are ahead of the dogs trailing behind. I also don't see how professional dog walkers can keep track of a number of off lead dogs. They should also be charged for a business permit to walk these dogs.

The survey needs to be amended.

[Phlox]

DandySandy Wrote:

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

> I agree with the initial post. I don't understand

> why dog owners feel that everyone should be as

> enamoured with their pup as they are. I have had a

> greedy labrador bite my child (yes, bite!), who

> was in a buggy, as he took food from his hand -

> the well spoken, well presented man, whose dog it

> was, barely said a word before he hurried away,

> whilst my child was distressed. I have had another

> dog, whilst my child was again in a buggy, try to

> jump into my buggy, as the dog was clearly over

> excited and agitating other dogs and passers-by.

> When I told the dog owner to stop her conversation

> and put her dog on a lead, as the signs stated, to

> calm him down, she told me I shouldn't be on the

> grass area where dogs run around and should be on

> the path!! I have again had to try and protect my

> children, from dogs who were obviously completely

> ignoring their dog walker, who had lost control.

> Each time, my children whom I frequently remind to

> not approach dogs they do not know, as an

> acknowledgement that the parks are shared spaces,

> the courtesy has not been returned. Social rejects

> come in all manner of the demographic rainbow.

> Just because you have yet to witness anti social

> dog behaviour, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

> Perhaps without a visible warden presence in

> parks, opportunities like the one presented in

> this instance, are the few times those affected by

> this can have a voice. Also, please do not use

> other horrific incidences in the park as a means

> to derail this conversation, all misdemeanours are

> a nuisance and deserve to be dealt with

> accordingly, the existence of this thread does not

> negate the seriousness of other issues!

Which park and what areas in the park are you referring to where someone told you you should be on the path and not the grass, and where a Labrador snatched food from your child?

[DandySandy]

Sorry, forgot to say. All my incidences were in Dulwich Park. The grass I was told to get off, was the main grass area by the Cafe, but further down towards the College Road gates. The labrador incident was on my way out, at the Court Lane gates.

[KidKruger]

wow being bitten by a dog is quite serious. what injuries did your child sustain - a dog bite will cause bruising, open cuts and puncture wounds. did you call the police after this attack, if so how did they follow-up after your child had been bitten.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> 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.

Absolutely! And I was once mugged by a bloke whose escape was facilitated by the fact that he was wearing training shoes, so ban joggers too!

Is this comment for real? Given that last week you were looking to blame the (non-existent) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for facilitating the attack there, perhaps it is...

first mate's comment was clearly making an apposite satirical point about what a nonsense it would be to ban the majority of law-abiding users of a park, be they dog owners, runners, cyclists or whatever, because of the poor behaviour of one or two, but your anti-cyclist prejudice clearly doesn't allow time to pause for nuances!

[DandySandy]

As the dog snatched the food, it misjudged when it needed to close it's mouth, as a result he dragged his teeth along his hand, and my son had scratches from the teeth and a huge welt from the injury, his hand remained red and sore, for a few days, where the injury had incurred. It took a few further weeks for the scratches to scab over and heal. He was mentally scarred for longer still. Fortunately, as he really does like dogs, we were able to alleviate a lot of the fear with the help of a family member who has dogs and he slowly got comfortable-ish around dogs, again. I was so shocked and shaken by the incident, that by the time I had pulled myself together, I also had a newborn in a carrier on me, and calmed my son down, the man and his dog had walked off and he stood and stared at a distance. I guess, I was so shocked and could barely remember the person, that I didn't know what I would say to the police. I do remember it was a chocolate lab. I try to understand the uses of others in the park and my child strapped to his buggy, safely, was still assaulted by a dog. I tried to brush it off as an isolated incident, but as my previous message states, I have had other less aggravated run ins, with unruly dogs, all in Dulwich Park.

[first mate]

DandySandy,

The behaviour of the owner of the Lab was inexcusable and I would be the first to say that dogs, especially young OTT dogs, need to be better controlled. I am glad your son was not badly injured ( as you say the dog was not intending to bite but misjudged where its teeth were when it was stealing food, but being allowed to steal the food from a child's hands in the first place was really bad).

You would have been entitled to report this to the police under the DDA and action could have been taken where the owner would have been compelled by court order to keep the dog under close control in future.

I am not however under the impression that you want all dogs put on a lead in the park all the time or that you want all dogs permanently excluded from public spaces all the time- this seems to be the aim of the council and its survey.

[nxjen]

This survey seems to focus on more specific issues and areas than the previous survey which, from memory which may be faulty, was much more general. The current survey focuses on specific categories within Southwark's open spaces e.g. Cemeteries, designated nature areas, children's areas and the number of dogs to be walked per individual. There are a couple of questions regarding open spaces in general such as the question about dog poo and the authority of a warden to ask dogs to be put on lead. This seems to be more a fine tuning of the previous survey. Call me naive but if enough people respond to the survey saying that dogs should be allowed off lead in nature areas and cemeteries I don't think any restrictions will happen. And if they do, what chance is there of them being enforced?

[first mate]

nxjen,

I really hope you are right and that the council is genuine in simply getting people to be more responsible dog owners but if so, why offer complete exclusion from certain areas? All you need is a few people that hate all dogs ( they do exist)to say yes and it may give the council the ammunition they need for wholesale bans. A total ban is easier to enforce than a variety of controls. Case in point, options already exist to fine etc..

To be clear the survey states 'near' children's play areas. That could mean anywhere children play and remember parks are used by schools for various activities, so how near is near?

[nxjen]

It's possible that a "few people who hate dogs" have got in touch with the Council and here the Council is giving an opportunity for dog lovers and owners to have their say. I really don't think a total ban is envisaged.

[KidKruger]

"Council is giving an opportunity for dog lovers AND owners to have their say"

Perhaps - but such a biased survey seems clear which way they want this to go.

[nxjen]

Well no I don't agree. For each question, there are responses Agree Strongly / Agree / Disagree / Disagree Srongly. The questions raised may be alarming to dog owners but I really suspect they have come about because people who are anti dog have made complaints to the Council. People who are happy with current access are unlikely to get in touch with the council specifically to say this. So this is a chance for those who are pro dogs, including myself though not an owner, to have their views taken into account.

[Penguin68]

Given that last week you were looking to blame the (non-existent) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for facilitating the attack there, perhaps it is..but your anti-cyclist prejudice clearly doesn't allow time to pause for nuances!

(1) There is a (narrow) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge - it is not full carriage width and it is separated from the road by raised paving, but for a 4x4 (which was what was used) that, together with the width of the pavement did allow for the car to proceed at speed causing the damage it did, straddling road(s) and pavement.

(2) My prejudice is against muggers using bikes to attack and get-away quickly - I am also against muggers using mopeds or motorcycles. Actually I am against muggers.

My point was that this survey seemed to be focusing on further criminalising dog ownership (I am not a dog owner or walker - I don't, as it were, have a dog in this fight) rather than looking at other issues which might make use of the various spaces more pleasurable (and safe) for the public. But it is a lot easier to deal with those with dogs than real criminals. My opening remarks 'The park is a brilliant (and generally safe) place for young people to learn to cycle - I would hate to see that stopped,..' should surely belie the claim that I am anti-bike (or anti-biker). If I was anti-bike I would presumably not want to see people learn how to ride? But if the parks were to become a biker's muggers' alley I hope even cycling enthusiasts would be concerned. And perhaps even consider remedies?

[nxjen]

Just wanted to add to my previous post, that this is a Southwark wide survey, not just confined to Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park. Southwark have a lot of (excellent) open spaces, if dogs are banned that's going to be an awful lot of residents they are going to p*ssed off and the potential for an awful lot more dog poo on the streets. Again, perhaps I'm being naive, and I know councils do an awful lot of stupid things, but I don't think they'd want to do that.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

> (1) There is a (narrow) cycle lane on Westminster

> Bridge - it is not full carriage width and it is

> separated from the road by raised paving, but for

> a 4x4 (which was what was used) that, together

> with the width of the pavement did allow for the

> car to proceed at speed causing the damage it did,

> straddling road(s) and pavement.

Let's not take the thread off topic, but that's completely wrong; I cycle over it regularly so I should know. The only cycle lane currently on Westminster Bridge is separated from the road by nothing but a painted white line. The idea that the attacker used the cycle lane to help him cross the bridge is utter nonsense, as it's just not there. Look on Google streetview if you don't believe me. They've just started building a segregated cycle lane, works commenced after the attack.

You said:

perhaps the parts

> where they (kids)could ride could be sealed from the

> exits so that others couldn't use the parks to

> ride and get away.

To me that reads have special areas for children learning to ride and ban cyclists from the rest of the park, isn't that what you meant?

[Penguin68]

ban cyclists from the rest of park, isn't that what you meant? No, not really, but it would be good to put in some chicanes or gates to stop muggers and thieves being able to ride unstopped out of the park. If we are to allow vehicles to access any of the parks (many of the spaces are not actually meant to be vehicle accessed anyway) then putting in some sorts of barriers to restrict further free egress (past parking spots) from the parks by cyclists would discourage those (criminals) aiming to use bikes for quick get-aways from thinking the parks are good hunting grounds for them - and yes I know there are practical issues such as buggy access and so on. Our parks are lovely and (mainly) safe at the moment and I would want them to stay that way - free for all users (including cyclists and dog owners/ walkers) to enjoy them. As they become abused in their usage then restrictions may need to be put in place.

But, again, my issue is about the priorities that this survey seems to indicate the council has, rather than anything specific about abusive and criminal cycling use, which was introduced simply as an exemplar of what else they could have been putting resource into.

[rendelharris]

In Dulwich Park, with reference to the incident yesterday, in fact the "ring road" used to be a public highway, so that at least is suitable for cycle access. All in favour of keeping bikes out of inappropriate areas - I never go onto the internal paths. I can't see (still thinking about Dulwich Park) how you're going to prevent cycle egress: for starters you'd have to close the carpark and, as you rightly say, anything preventing cyclists getting out will prevent pushchairs, wheelchair users etc getting in.

I'll take your silence re Westminster Bridge as conceding the point!

[first mate]

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.

[Penguin68]

I'll take your silence re Westminster Bridge as conceding the point!

The attached picture clearly shows a dedicated (narrow) cycle lane (but not segregated, there I was wrong) on Westminster Bridge. That, together with the pavement, gave a much clearer (wider) run for a 4x4 than if the traffic had been solid to the pavement. I note that a cyclist isn't using the lane, and pass no comment. I have already said that the line is not full width.

[rendelharris]

As indeed I said, a painted line. The cyclist in your picture "not using the lane" by the way is clearly pulling out to overtake the cycle rickshaw ahead of her. The idea that the cycle lane helped the attacker is quite absurd, especially as traffic was actually flowing freely at the time.

Apologies to others for taking the thread off topic, but it is actually pertinent: the Westminster murderer used a car to drive to Westminster, to access the bridge and commit his foul deeds, but nobody's suggested cutting off car access to the area, yet somebody on a bicycle commits a crime in Dulwich Park and immediately suggestions are made that cycle access should be restricted. As absurd as wanting to ban dogs from the park if one person bought an illegal fighting dog into the park and it attacked somebody - as a society, if we start constraining the vast majority as a reaction to the illegal actions of a tiny minority, we're up the proverbial with no paddle in sight.

[snowy]

Its a dotted line - that doesn't make it a dedicated lane, as vehicles are allowed to cross it.

Its about 3 foot wide, and as your photos shows, is often full of tourists, pedestrians, glass shards and other rubbish.

The cyclist is perfectly entitled to be riding where they are.

(but this is a massive digression from dogs & parks, so should probably be lounged)

[Toffee]

A dogs natural instinct is to seek out food. Dogs are members of the Wolfe family, therefore they have. An inherited natural scavenger dna. I regularly walk my dog in Peckham Rye Park and am amazed at the people who choose not to use the dog free picnic area, sit on the grass in the dog areaand wonder why said dog has nicked the food. USE YOUR EYES. Most parks have designated dogfree areas.

[taper]

My dog is a seasoned thief. Now we're in the picnic season, she runs onto Peckham Rye like a lion surveying a vast herd of geriatric wildebeest.