To the man who was walking his 2 dogs on Ondine Road last night! (June 2011)

[genwilliams]

I wholeheartedly agree and have thought this for years. It's too easy to get a dog for the wrong reasons, and either not care for it properly, or disregard the comfort and safety of others.

I think it would be sensible to expect people to prove they know what they're doing when they take responsibility for an animal that they are going to take out in public on a daily basis. Dogs would benefit enormously from there being some regulation of how they can be owned and treated, and it might go some way to reducing the current situation where certain breeds are merely owned as status symbols and/or weapons. I know the RSPCA supports the idea of something like this, though other charities take a more negative view of it.

petersen Wrote:

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

> I

> really am starting to think that should have to

> get a dog licence before being allowed a dog, and

> that ownership should maybe be regulated. After

> all its not just other animals that get hurt,

> horrific as that is, think of that little girl in

> Liverpool. :(

[Peckhamrye]

Once upon a time you did have to have a dog licence...abolished in 1987 because it was widely disregarded.

[genwilliams]

Yeah, they replaced it with the Dangerous Dogs Act didn't they?

It would be nice if they could effectively implement something pre-emptive like a licencing system, without it being prohibitively expensive for good dog owners. That's been one of the criticisms levelled at the idea - that it'd just be a hefty tax on dog owners.

[nancysmum]

the problem is responsible dog owners would most probably pay the tax, irresponsible ones would most probably not bother...and then, how would it be policed? You'd have to carry your licence around with you. What would happen if the person didn't have a dog licence? the dog taken away? destroyed? the person given a fine which he/she would never pay, taken to court, put in already overcrowded jails, come out and most probably get another dog. Unfortunately we are living in a time of austerity and so if the council spent time and money implementing this, it would be ludicrous when the money could be better spent else where.

I think a better way of handling this is to use the faces/features of a child or animal who has been maimed, create posters and put them up around the places where people walk their dogs so they can be reminded of the personal cost of irresponsible dog ownership. Anyone agree?

[first mate]

One of the simplest ways of ensuring safety on the streets is by making everyone walk their dogs on a lead. Heavy, immediate fines for dissenters would soon get the message across. This would not cover everything, but a dog on a lead can be controlled and avoided. In addition, those who have very small dogs and would rather not risk a confrontation with more pugilistic breeds offlead, can at least walk their dogs in safety around the streets etc.. If you see what looks like a big bull breed and feel worried, you have the option to cross the street and avoid, knowing it cannot follow you because it is on a lead. I'm sure parents would feel more comfortable with this too.

I for one, cannot understand why the law has not been amended and clarified to get this small but significant change underway. It would be so much easier to police as well. So, no dogs offlead except on private property or in the park. Dogs that escape from the front path onto the pavement, would invoke an immediate fine, because the law of no dogs offlead on streets and paths would have been broken.

[aquarius moon]

First mate,

I absolutely agree with you.

I can't understand why the law hasn't been changed, especially when you hear about so many dogs attacking children

& other dogs/cats these days.

It would be so much safer for everybody if they were kept on leads when walking in the streets.

[civilservant]

action against dangerous dogs seems to be largely a local matter left to the discretion of local authorities.

Something's happening in Southwark - here's an undated report (probably from end of last year) about Southwark's BARK initiative http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroughs/southwark/04how_are_we_doing/news/new_initiative_launched_to_tackle_dangerous_dogs_in_southwark which talks about action to seize dangerous dogs

I also note that a Southwark Dog Strategy 2011-14 has just been approved by the Council http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2187 This has two priority delivery areas: encouraging responsible dog ownership and tackling dog related ASB and dogs dangerously out of control.

However, delivery of the strategy depends on "any conceived restraints to resources and budgets"

I suppose we'll have to wait and see what that means

[first mate]

A quick read of the Southwark strategy suggests that they are doing nothing to really tackle the problem. The main concern is trees damaged by dogs in the park and putting dogs on a lead, when asked in the park. In short, the fear of dangerous dogs is being used as an excuse to institute dog control orders in the park. I use the parks a lot and I rarely see trees destroyed by dogs- I see plenty destroyed by young humans or at the behest of young humans.

The Southwark strategy does not address dogs offlead on the paths, roads and streets. They have missed a massive opportunity. For safer, responsible dog ownership LEASH ON THE STREET.

[Bunny19]

As a dog owner I just don't get the requirement to walk a dog on the streets or restricted public areas off a lead. My dog will comfortably walk to heal, but at the end of the day she is an animal and needs controlling. I enjoy the fact I can take her into local pubs after a walk in the park, but will only do so on a firm short lead. My dog is a big soppy fool under my guidance and that's the way it should be, if I were to let her roam free it's inconsiderate to others who don't like dogs or more importantly small children that know no better than running up to them without realising the consequences that could evolve.

[first mate]

Bunny19,

Quite. Stamping out offlead dogs on the street would tackle a whole load of problems in one go. It is easy and cheap to police. It is clear and unambiguous and there is no need to check on licenses, chips, breed type etc.. No investigations needed as to who started what. Also, if a dog poops while on the lead it is much harder for the owner to pretend they are not aware, on that note I would also ban flexi leads on the street- a short lead is what is required. Bottom line is, on- lead dogs can be avoided by those who dislike them, and properly controlled by owners.

One of the big flaws is that is does not stop idiots keeping a dangerous dog and taking it out on a lead, in close proximity to their children- but individual responsibility has to kick in at some point.

[Pugwash]

Agree all dogs should be on leads in the street and short leads not flexi length leads. Having had 4 dogs (retired greyhounds) they were all kept on short leads and muzzled so the local cat population was safe. Even in the park they were rarely let off the lead as were prone to attack by other dogs - especially little ones like Jack Russells.

I find owners who use the extending leads to be generally irresponsible in their handling of the dog. They use the extending leads in the street allowing the animal to run 8/10 feet away- many a time I have seen a child become unsettled by a bounding dog, the leads are a menance to those with poor mobility or poor sight as you can be tripped up easily.

[puzzled]

how much longer is this thread going to go on. I should think the original man and his dogs have died of old age or boredom by now

[bonniebird]

A lot of sense being spoken on here. Its not rocket science. I just don't understand how hard it can be to to be made to keep a dog on lead on the street. I for one would fear for the safety of my dog with the traffic and all :'(

[aquarius moon]

puzzled Wrote:

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

> how much longer is this thread going to go on. I

> should think the original man and his dogs have

> died of old age or boredom by now

Threads can go on forever.

If it's an interesting topic, people continue to give their opinion.

If you find it so boring & can add no valuable input, I suggest you go elsewhere.

[louisdias]

I actually shed tears when I played out the scene in my head. I can just imagine having that cat in arms while the injection kicks in and the poor cats breathing slows, slows then eventually stops completely. I would have wept like a baby in a situation like that. :(

Iv develpoed a mild hatered for dogs now, im trying to convince myself that this is just life and dog,s and any animal for that will kill things, to eat or for the thrill. But being a cat lover isnt helping me to overcome my recently aquired biased feeling towards dogs...

Hopefully the man was reported etc? Highly unlikely I guess thats just life, after all if everyone and everything lived forever where would we be? :-S

[Gidget]

Cats kill birds, rats and mice. Dogs sometimes kill cats. It's daft to say you have a hatred of dogs because some of them have killed cats. Dogs do far more for society as a whole than cats do.

[Worker]

Are we really going to have a debate about the relative merits of cats and dogs? Lord help us.

[RosieH]

Yep. Hating dogs because the odd one has occasionally killed a cat is facile. They're animals. They behave according to their nature.

The average cat kills 16 animals a year.

I'll wager the average dog doesn't kill 16 cats. But perhaps if they did, Britain might still have a few songbirds.