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

    • I would support bringing back some sort of sanction for not turning up (if it's not still in force).  But I think a sanction that reduces your ability to book in advance (say you go from 7 to 3 days advance) rather than a fine would be more effective and easier on the staff who work there.  It would also be more effective for rich people who might not care about paying the fines. Or you could just fine say the top 5 worst offenders in a month, which would probably take out those who had a genuine one-off emergency so couldn't turn up.
    • Just joined, thanks for organising and heads-up...
    • Whether a pool is overcrowded or not, the absence of the lifeguard is the critical factor here. To use this tragic anecdote as a reason to disregard valid points about accessibility is a reach too far and designed to emotionally blackmail anyone who disagrees with the status quo. At least some - not all - of the hours of operation ought to be for drop-ins as has been standard for decades. (Overcrowding is easily prevented with the use of wristbands and/or headcount at ticket desk, etc. - as was the case before Covid.) 
    • Oh FFS, one good week followed by one incorrect result away from engraving La Coupe de la Misère.  Week 19 points...   Week 19 table...    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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