Jump to content

Recommended Posts

have just returned from walking the doggies in peckham rye park. damage by staff type dogs to the trees has reached horrendous proportions and we are now certain to lose many nice examples. bark has been stripped from the base of many trees and it may now be impossible to save them. park authorities really must start a programme of protective guards around the trees. I know cash is tight, but do we really have to write off our beloved trees? come on councillors. time to get cracking.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/21861-tree-damage-in-park/
Share on other sites

davidh Wrote: how the hell do you know that it is caused by staffy type dogs, do sit and spy on dog walkers? Makes you sound a bit weird if I'm honest. Maybe we should all get a Dalmation or some other piney dog

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

> have just returned from walking the doggies in

> peckham rye park. damage by staff type dogs to the

> trees has reached horrendous proportions and we

> are now certain to lose many nice examples. bark

> has been stripped from the base of many trees and

> it may now be impossible to save them. park

> authorities really must start a programme of

> protective guards around the trees. I know cash is

> tight, but do we really have to write off our

> beloved trees? come on councillors. time to get

> cracking.

If it is damage by dogs surely the owners of the dogs should take responsibility not the park/ council. It is another waste of tax payers money that dog owners are unable to look after what they own.


The alternative is to ban dogs from the parks and at the same time to ban them from the streets which would save the cost of cleaning up after them.


Alternatively why not reintroduce dog licences at say ?500 a year, you then have the choise between dog ownership or not.


Everything else is taxed so why not another thing.

James it could be that the 'anti bite' foul-tasting ingredient is not effective, especially if the dog is being worked up and encouraged to bite at the trees. A cage might be better. Anyone that sees dogs doing this should report it to the park warden immediately.


Anyhow, it is the owners that need to be caught and dealt with- antisocial behaviour in its myriad forms is a problem for us all. Of course, in some cases the trees are just ripped at by people sans dog, I've seen young males doing this in the park. The regular grafitti damage to the Japanese summerhouse is a pain, but at least the bowling pavilion has not been burned down again. However, a couple of years back vandals did set fire to some trees on the Rye.


What was it you were saying about banning those causing damage from the park and streets grumpy?

grumpyoldman Wrote:

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

> If it is damage by dogs surely the owners of the

> dogs should take responsibility not the park/

> council. It is another waste of tax payers money

> that dog owners are unable to look after what they

> own.

>

> The alternative is to ban dogs from the parks and

> at the same time to ban them from the streets

> which would save the cost of cleaning up after

> them.

>

> Alternatively why not reintroduce dog licences at

> say ?500 a year, you then have the choise between

> dog ownership or not.

>

> Everything else is taxed so why not another thing.



If dog licences were introduced the type of dog owners that allow their dogs to chew and damage trees wouldn't pay for a licence for their dog you can guarantee that. It would be impossible to enforce it aswell!


As for saying an alternative is to ban dogs from parks and streets I do hope you were joking!

nununoolio Ha ha ha idiot

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

> The owner of the Staffie (Not so weird now

> Lishyloo)that had been biting the trees was

> stopped and cautioned by the park warden on

> Sunday. Too late to save several trees, which have

> been badly damaged, but hopefully these attacks

> will no longer happen

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

    • Dulwich College had the "luck" of those allegations landing right in the middle of COVID when the media and everyone else was a bit distracted. And then to make double sure the discontent was suppressed, it threatened kids who wanted to demonstrate with police action. The kids at the time said: "Dulwich College has for years totally ignored, dismissed and condoned by turning a blind eye, this predatory behaviour by students... A protest was students’ only way to pressure the headmaster to actually tackle the sexual violence at his school.” The march by pupils of several schools was advertised on social media as “a demonstration against the predatory culture of Dulwich College and the school management [which] condones it". https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/26/dulwich-college-head-warns-pupils-over-culture-protest
    • @Cyclemonkey@Penguin68 Yes I heard that... I thought it was thunder at first and it did indeed sound like shelling
    • So if we were to give the council the benefit of the doubt there is a chance this might be net beneficial to Peckham rye? There’s a slim chance someone somewhere has crunched the numbers and not done this purely to annoy us? 
    • In the past such details have always been described as commercially sensitive, which they possibly are. So we've never really known what the deals actually were. And whether they represented value for money for the council, and hence us. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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