Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"In my view, dogs have an important role in the daily lives of many and such a swingeing change to their lives is simply unjustifiable."


The most reliable looking stat I can find suggests that dog ownership in London runs at about 7% of households, signficantly lower than the UK average. I would guess, but it is only a guess, that the percentage for inner boroughs is lower than for outer boroughs, so for Southwark might be 5%? Whichever figure is right, it's clearly not sustainable for dog owners to insist on an absolute 'right to roam' if significant numbers of others want to be able to have some public spaces dog-free.


It's also not very persuasive just to argue that restrictions won't work because they won't be enforced or won't deter offenders. This argument can be raised about all sorts of relatively low level anti social behaviour but that is not a reason not to do anything. Compulsory microchipping is likely to make a difference.

DaveR,


I don't know the source of your stats,so cannot comment on those. If the overwhleming majority want dog-free parks I suppose it is curtains for the future of dogs as pets in the city. However, I see no evidence for this view, nor is it clear on what grounds Southwark are pursuing this. Those who frequent the park daily see no evidence of an increase in dog related issues- whatever that very open-ended statement means. I do suspect there is a minority that would like a no-dog city, but I very much doubt it's the majority.


On the subject of Dog Control Orders. I think the degree to which byelaws can be policed and enforced is wholly relevant to the debate. I think it is vital to know exactly what the aims of the legislation are and how achievable, otherwise it's a waste of time and money, surely?

'Those who frequent the park daily see no evidence of an increase in dog related issues'


This is only your opinion. I frequent Dulwich park daily and do see an increase in dog related issues. What is an issue for some isnt for others so I think you can only speak for yourself rather than claim to be representative of 'daily park users'.

Just to be clear - I am not advocating prohibition of dogs in parks, nor am I suggesting that the difficulties of enforcing restrictions on dogs are irrelevant. I am observing that dog owners (like any other group with a vested interest) will tend to make exaggerated claims in order to prevent debate on the issues, and that is exactly what is happening on this thread.

Mako,


Fair point- I meant those of us who frequent the park daily to walk our dogs, but I should have qualified that statement. By and large dog walkers (as in owners of)use the park all year round, even in cold, wet and windy weather. Overall, no I have not seen an increase in dog related issues, but I am only guessing what that term may mean.


You say that you have seen an increase- could you elaborate?

DaveR,


I protest. The debate is happening on this forum, not being suppressed. What claims have been exaggerated and by whom? My view is that the current "survey" on Southwark website is poorly designed and designed to give a misleading overview of attitudes to dogs in the parks. Why would they want to do this? As another poster has implied, the sense is that they have an objective, their minds are made up, and are now trying to get the ammunition with which to push it through. Open -ended propositions are one way to do that.

Elm grove...

Yes I certainly do say something if I see an owner not noticing (deliberately or not) their dog messing.

As for poo on wheels... I try my hardest to avoid it but I don't go to the park to keep my eyes to the ground!!! Yes, it is from wheeling over grass... Even in dog restricted areas!!

Like I said I am not a dog hater but hate the consequences of some if their actions around children and adults.

It's been said many time before, but none of us like dog poo, not even dog owners and the majority of dog owners do pick up. Aside from the quite understandable emotions that the subject triggers, what, on a practical level, would you like the average, repsonsible dog owner to do?


Like you, we have no control over the anti-social minority. If we really think that patrols and fineas are going to work then ok, but I, as you will have read , am not convinced there are the resources available to properly police and enforce dog fouling laws. To ban all dogs from all parks would be highly punitive and detrimental to the responsible dog owner. I also think that a city sterilised of dogs, an animal we have kept as a pet for thousands of years, would be a loss. But I would think that.

I'm not a dog owner, but I wouldn't like it if dogs were banned from the parks either. Vast majority of owners do the right thing and pick up after their dog, and whilst I am sure there is the odd badly behaved dog in the parks, most of them are lovely and seeing them cheers me up.


If we are going to start banning dogs, where is it going to end - banning humans because some of them are a menace too?

Surely unless you are a dog hater, you wouldn't fill in the survey asking that dogs be banned from the parks?


In my mind, once one sector of the community is banned, it opens it up for others to follow. Why ban the dogs and not cyclists/roller blades/picnics/ball games ect. The parks are a public space for us all to use (respectfully). It seems like a slippery slope to campaign to ban any of us.


I am a small dog owner that does keep my dog on a lead where instructed and picks up poo! I use Dulwich Park and rarely come across irresponsible owners, but know there are some out there. I generally have trouble with fast cycling while walking there but wouldn't dream of asking cyclists to be banned. Maybe to slow down when pedestrians are about but otherwise the park is there for all of us to enjoy and that's the way it should stay.


One bugbear is the litter, especially after a warm weekend. On a Monday morning the guys in the park have mountains of rubbish just dumped there. I'd prefer to petition about getting people to take their crap home to their own bins!

Southwark havent suggested banning dogs as far as I can see. They are investigating some controls to deal with the anti social behaviour involving dogs. along with the 'havent seen an incident in 20 years' these are the exaggerations that daver was referring to earlier in the thread

They haven't suggested anything but it has been discussed on this thread and is the conclusion many of us are making. I completed the survey and felt uneasy, the questions were leading in my view. Maybe I'm just a suspicious old cow, who knows.

I can honestly say that I've never seen a dog attack, of course they happen but I've not seen it and I use the park twice a day, every day. I have also seen what LD described where people get abuse for having a dog off lead and in the off lead area. Maybe those areas need to be more clearly defined? One side of the park for dogs off lead and the other on?


Most of us that have dogs, want these issues remedied. The ones that don't and do as they please, will most likely continue to do so anyway, regardless of what the council decides.

Mako,


I don't think Southwark's intentions are clear. Control orders might be a first step, but if those don't work, for the reasons given ie enforcement and resources...what next? It is not unknown for control orders to be used to ban all dogs, once in place, who decides? Something of the thinking of Southwark may be apparent in the exceedingly dodgy survey design- hardly even-handed.


As I have said, all of us dislike dog poo. It is not necessarily less offensive to me as a dog owner,than it is to you as a non-owner (that is an assumption and I am sure you'll correct me if I am wrong).


For the person who said they hadn't seen an incident in 20 years I would imagine they are not referring to fouling but something more extreme. In fairness, Southwark do not specify what is meant by dog-related issues. However, I would add that having lived in the borough and ED for over 20 years it is not my experience there has been a rise in fouling either, but yes, there is fouling and it is regrettable.

chuff Wrote:

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

> In my mind, once one sector of the community is

> banned, it opens it up for others to follow. Why

> ban the dogs and not cyclists/roller

> blades/picnics/ball games ect. The parks are a

> public space for us all to use (respectfully). It

> seems like a slippery slope to campaign to ban any

> of us.

>

> I am a small dog owner that does keep my dog on a

> lead where instructed and picks up poo! I use

> Dulwich Park and rarely come across irresponsible

> owners, but know there are some out there. I

> generally have trouble with fast cycling while

> walking there but wouldn't dream of asking

> cyclists to be banned. Maybe to slow down when

> pedestrians are about but otherwise the park is

> there for all of us to enjoy and that's the way it

> should stay.


Well said - there are annoying cyclists in Dulwich Park (especially those trying to do Strava laps at peak times), annoying runners (especially on 'race nights' where they block the carriageway for all other users), annoying ice-cream queuers (especially when the queue goes across the carriageway rather than along it), annoying dog-walkers (who don't have their dogs on leads or under control or who feel it's a good idea to throw the ball to their dog across the path of a cyclist) but for the most part, we do all rub along together.


I do think dogs should be allowed off their leads in the park so long as the owner can keep control of them. It's not fair on them to expect their only exercise to be on a leash or along a pavement. So far as dog poo goes, the majority seems to be picked up these days compared to when I was a kid.


There are guidelines now for cycling speeds and areas where dogs should be on a short leash but neither are enforced. I suspect even if you made the rules stricter, the same people will break those rules unless there's punitive measures which would probably not be cost-effective.

chuff,


I think Southwark have deliberately been unclear because the survey is a fishing expedition. First suggest that there is a problem of some kind, then ask people if they are aware of dog related issues in a dodgy survey. For every person that answers 'yes' bearing in mind that it might be something quite minor, Southwark can start to build stats that say x% of respondents say there are issues with dogs in our parks.


If a similar survey was done with similar wording about any other sector of park users you could build a substantial number of seemingly anti people too. As you point out, we all have the odd issue with each other but we generally rub along.

Applespider,


you make a very good point- park speed limits (is it 12mph)don't seem to be well enforced at all. It is tempting to mount an online survey now to ask if anyone has experienced any cyclist related issues, and see what happens. My issue would be that I often don't hear them coming behind me and feel that if I stepped out by only a few inches I'd be a gonner.


BTW all for cycling, just using above as an example of the Southwark survey MO.

I envy anybody who has small dogs & feels safe walking them in the park. Whether it is Peckham Rye (my local), Dulwich etc., is irrelevant.


I haven't walked my 3 yorkie crosses in the park for 3 years.


Why?


Because they had been set upon on numerous occasions, by larger dogs. These were mainly staffs/bull breeds, but not always.

Said dogs were always off-lead & ran up to mine, who have always been on leads.


My little dogs are over-friendly to all & wouldn't hurt a fly, so if a larger dog takes a dislike to one of them & attacks it, what chance do they stand?


My views: There should be areas in parks where dogs should only be walked on leads. That way, I could safely take mine back there, knowing loose dogs would not be approaching.

Other areas for walking dogs off-lead, so that people like myself wouldn't go there.


I filled in the survey as a dog owner, but unfortunately did say yes to dog related issues in Peckham Rye Park. I also added that I think all dogs should be kept on leads while on streets/pavement walking.


I always clean up after my dogs & don't have any problems with dog mess either in my road or the park, as I think most people locally are responsible dog owners.


If I owned large breed dogs, I might think differently, but my priority is keeping my dogs safe.

Sorry to hear that Aquarius moon, I have an overly friendly mini dachshund that will approach any dog to play. With the exception of one dog that was muzzled and definitely didn't like her, it's been a lovely experience socialising and playing with all breeds and sizes of dog. I only ever go to Dulwich park and find that most of the dogs there are very well socialised. Maybe you could walk them on a lead around the pond area at dulwich? If you go through the court lane gate and straight through the middle via the cafe, you shouldn't encounter many dogs off lead as they're supposed to be on lead there.

Agree about dogs off lead on the pavement.

Dulwich is too far for me as I live over the other side of Peckham Rye park.


I think possibly other dogs may see mine as a threat because there are 3 of them (pack instinct etc?)


I pavement walk my dogs one at a time now, which is less fun for them & very time consuming for me.


But at least there is less chance of them being attacked.

The tricky thing is that if dogs aren't allowed off lead anywhere, they don't get socialised when young and are more likely to be aggressive to other dogs.


It's possible the pack thing could be a red rag to some dogs, I've not seen that before but I'm sorry your dogs don't get to run and play safely.


I've not seen of the leaflets in dulwich park btw, I will look tomorrow.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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