Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Despite notices at each entrance and in the reserve itself saying bird breeding season started on 1 March and dogs need to be kept on a short lead, most of the dogs I saw earlier today were running around loose.


If you have a dog, particularly working dog breeds like spaniels, setters, pointers, labs etc that have strong instincts to flush out birds, please do take care and keep them on leads until the breeding season ends in July. There are lots of other parks locally where dogs can run around freely so hopefully everyone can support this.

I'm not talking about parks in general and I'm fine with dogs running around off the lead wherever that's allowed, but a lot of conservation work goes into the woods and nature reserve, and during breeding season dog owners who don't keep dogs on a lead are compromising the birds' chances of breeding.


We're so lucky with green spaces in this area and they do a lot to offset the pollution we create, so please let's all do our bit.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately many dog owners are a law to

> themselves.


Yeah unfortunatly dogs cant read so if people would close the gates in ruskin park like the signs read, dogs wouldnt be able to run in. So next time you see a dog running free in the dogs on lead area check that the gates are closed

On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public Space Protection Orders with which to 'police' the dog owning public. It will be interesting to see how the policing works in practice, which individuals are tasked with this and how fair it is. The PCPOS are set to be in place for 3 years.


Press around these orders elsewhere has been variable and at times highly critical.


PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and other anti social behaviour, so it will also be interesting to see if Southwark pursues other areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music festival this summer.

first mate Wrote:

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

> On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public Space

> Protection Orders with which to 'police' the dog

> owning public. It will be interesting to see how

> the policing works in practice, which individuals

> are tasked with this and how fair it is. The PCPOS

> are set to be in place for 3 years.

>

> Press around these orders elsewhere has been

> variable and at times highly critical.

>

> PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and

> other anti social behaviour, so it will also be

> interesting to see if Southwark pursues other

> areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar

> way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close

> down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music

> festival this summer.


If it means one can have a picnic in the park without having their food stolen, or everything up ended by a dog, well, that would be nice.

stringvest Wrote:

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

It's surprising also

> that in bird breeding season, the council send the

> tree trimmers out, and people butcher their

> hedges!



https://www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/When-is-the-bird-nest-season

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public

> Space

> > Protection Orders with which to 'police' the

> dog

> > owning public. It will be interesting to see

> how

> > the policing works in practice, which

> individuals

> > are tasked with this and how fair it is. The

> PCPOS

> > are set to be in place for 3 years.

> >

> > Press around these orders elsewhere has been

> > variable and at times highly critical.

> >

> > PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and

> > other anti social behaviour, so it will also be

> > interesting to see if Southwark pursues other

> > areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar

> > way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close

> > down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music

> > festival this summer.

>

> If it means one can have a picnic in the park

> without having their food stolen, or everything up

> ended by a dog, well, that would be nice.


Rahrahrah,


If the intention really is to get irresponsible owners to be more considerate that is fine and it remains to be seen if that is the case? I am interested in who will be doing the policing- there are very few park wardens and community wardens have better things to do, surely?

  • 2 weeks later...
My understanding though doesn't effect me - walker can walk 5 at a time but only 3 off lead at once...yes, interesting how they plan to police it as not enough staff to start with - perhaps community pay back - now that would be a joke..!! Most dog walkers I know would frankly welcome being licenced as we are considerate, well most of us are and being doing it for a number of years. It is more the start ups who then employ other staff as far as I am concerned when things tend to come unstuck and leads to us self employed walker running our own business dealing with complaints and aggression from general public. Real pity that whilst I believe proposed certainly by Lambeth last year did not go ahead. Frankly wish Southwark would do the same thing and Lambeth then everyone is singing from same page. Almost certain walkers in Battersea have been licenced for years so what isthecproblem in our part of world. Do agree that woofers should be on lead during breeding season for birds but how many townies care?
As it's breeding season, at the moment it should be NONE off the lead in the nature reserve! Doesn't matter whether you agree or not - that's their rule for everyone. Perhaps you mean in other parks where this rule doesn't apply.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...