Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Also miacus, please stop asking for statistics because the type of incidents being referred to are not necessarily the type that would get recorded, and that is why no ban has been proposed. You yourself say that on sundays you keep your dog on the lead. The council agrees with you rhat there are times and places when this is necessary but as not all owners are as considerate as you they are proposing a policy to highlight what is acceptable. What is with the conspiracy theory that they are against dogs anyway? What benefit is there to the council if banning dogs?
For those who cant be bothered to actually complete the survey from the council, there is no option to say that you want dogs banned from the park because they have zero intention of banning dogs from the park. If they do have an agenda as such i would suggest they are looking to try and tackle fouling through increased measures and perhaps reducing the number of dogs that one person can bring into the park to four. Seems perfectky reasonable to me and i would have thought reasonable to most park users, dog owners included.

This so called public consultation is not about dog mess at all as I agree with "spider69" there are no more dogs now than in the past. This is about Southwark welcoming "families and their children" to their parks and open spaces. Southwark says in their questionnaire dog owners who in the minority are costing tax payers money on clearing up dog fouling and affecting the enjoyment of some visitors to their parks.

1) That's why tax payers money goes towards employing Southwark wardens we see walking 2 by 2, is it not? to patrol these types of anti-social behaviours.

2) I would welcome the next survey by Southwark on banning all lorry drivers in Southwark so visitors to Southwark on their cycles can ride safely, as these lorry drivers in the minority are costing the tax payers money spent on the ambulance service, the fire service the police, not to mention the hospital service also when they accidentally run cyclists over.

3) How about banning people from eating and drinking in the parks, as the tax payers money goes towards employing people to pick up litter, beer cans sweet wrappers crisp wrapper etc.

4) How about creating more Dog Only exercise gated areas (theres one in Nunhead) where families with push chairs and babies, know not to enter if they don't like dogs. This area is well respected by all responsible dog owners, as they are polite enough to wait for other dogs to leave before entering as not all dogs get on and they always pick up their dogs mess apart from the minority.

5) How about creating more "HUMAN FREE AREA ONLY", in Peckham Rye, there is a DOG FREE area for families which works perfectly well for them, though they're still encountering poo of a different kind aren't they? when they find when laying their picnic sheets down to not find dog poo on the grass but bird poo, fox poo etc. What next, survey on ridding all birds in the parks so visitors to the parks can enjoy Southwarks open spaces?


Dogs bring a lot of joy to those majority of responsible dog owners, and also a joy for us when we can watch them RUN FREE (just like toddlers when in a playground with other toddlers) and play with other like minded dogs. We are responsible human beings are we not, as a dog owner if I don't like the look of what I see ahead of me be it a dog or human I steer and walk in the opposite direction.


Southwark needs to promote education to adults and children alike because I have had adults screaming from a distance when I've had my dog walking on a lead beside me, yelling and screaming at me to keep my dog away from her all because she doesn't like dogs, the distance between us was about 20 metres! Needless to say I was shocked and just carried on walking with my dog calmly beside me! I might not like certain characters walking beside me i.e. smokers, what next Southwark carrying out survey to promote banning smoking altogether to make their open spaces an enjoyable smoke free zone??? or survey on preventing groups of teenagers hanging together in public because they intimidate others.


Oh and create more "HUMAN FREE AREAS ONLY" then those stay at home women with their push prams walking side by side next to other mothers with push prams deep in conversation, cannot then complain they have to wipe dog poo off their push prams when they get home.

Question for dog owners, and apologies if this has already been discussed on the thread, but how useful are designated dog area in parks? There is a fairly large fenced area at Myatt's Field specifically for dogs to run off lead and socialise with one another, and I often see people and their animals there. I know they're popular elsewhere, but don't know if people here would go for them. Would such areas reduce the need to walk dogs around the rest of the park?

The problem with dog exercise areas is that they are unlikely to be big enough for the owner to actually have a walk at the same time.


One of the positive aspects about owning a dog is the increased exercise for the owner when they take the dog for a walk. For some people it's the only exercise they get.

Hi JS33,

I wouldn't use a dog only area as my dog doesn't like other dogs - not in an aggressive way, but he is a solitary animal and just likes having his walk around the park and sniffing at whatever gets his interest. He wouldn't enjoy being in an enclosed area where he was unable to get away.

Dogs have different characters and different histories that colour their reactions to situations, same as people, we don't all like the same things :-)

(not meaning to sound patronising, but realise it reads that way a bit, sorry!)

Have just looked up current dog restrictions in Southwark and this is what I've found. It shows the areas in each park where dogs are not permitted, permitted on leads and the areas where they can be off lead but where penalties for not picking up poo are in force.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/6454/dog_ban_and_dogs_on_leads_byelaws


It seems we already have dog free areas so whatever Southwark are planning, it is likely to be much stricter than this. My feeling is a blanket dog ban in parks is what they want.

Cllr Barber has been very quiet on this matter perhaps he might like to comment.


In the real world all that is required is for dog owners to look out for their dogs and others to accept that dogs can use parks.



Posted by elloriac Yesterday, 10:28PM


Hi JS33,

I wouldn't use a dog only area as my dog doesn't like other dogs - not in an aggressive way, but he is a solitary animal and just likes having his walk around the park and sniffing at whatever gets his interest. He wouldn't enjoy being in an enclosed area where he was unable to get away.

Dogs have different characters and different histories that colour their reactions to situations, same as people, we don't all like the same things :-)

(not meaning to sound patronising, but realise it reads that way a bit, sorry!)


A very sensible comment

Precisely, there are already national laws in place for dog fouling where on the spot fines can be issued, there are already areas of the park where dogs should be kept on lead. If there are not the resources to police and enforce perfectly good existing legislation what is going to change with putting in more, will Southwark invest in more park and dog wardens...? Of course not. Southwark, by the way, axed all their dog wardens.


The only difference with instituting dog control orders is that Southwark then have the power to make whatever changes they like without consultation.....complete ban of dogs.

Somebody mentioned to me yesterday that this was retrospective and already a done deal, I sincerely hope not. Would like the chance to challenge Southwark on this.


I looked for the survey in Dulwich park yesterday but no sign of it, unless they are in the cafe in the dog free zone. Sigh.


edited: typo!

Loathe as I am to be fair to Mr Barber, I don't think any of Southwark's parks actually fall within his constituency - so he might be seen as commenting on something which is the remit of others. I am sure there would be people happy to point this out if he did comment.


HOWEVER - he might want to consider that some of his constituents do use Southwark parks recreationally, or to walk their dogs, so might have an interest in the outcome of all this.

inside the cafe dog free but outside dogs on leads, that's how i've interpreted the document and what the signs say.

I don't take my dog that way generally in the school holidays or weekends as she wants to play, a lot! it can annoy people so I only go there when I know it's quiet, mostly in the winter.

Mine's only just a year old so even on the lead she will want to roll around with the other dogs tied up. It's best I keep her on the big outside track unless it's quiet.


Agree they should be on leads there. Some run across the grass though from main path. A fence where that strip of grass starts would be helpful.

there are usually more dogs in the park than people. in the winter usually only dog people are there at all. I wonder what input that miserable bully on a bike park warden had into this. there is a man totally out of synch with his "customers".
This is worrying... completed the survey and forwarded it to my facebook chums. If we're not careful, we soon will be forced to keep our dogs on the lead everywhere. I am getting so much hostility just for being a dog owner. Even worst, often. I've been shouted at, threatened, verbally insulted, had idiots trying to kick my dogs, idiots slamming the (very heavy)communal door in their face, been spat at, had someone waving a bottle in my face once. Had my puppy attcked by 2 other dogs, and been physically assaulted by a bunch of teenagers "walking" these (no adult in sight) as I tried to push their dogs away, police never came. Pfff...This is what the problem is: the police should deal with irresponsible dog owners, and come when called. As soon as you say it's a dogs issue, they don't bother turning up. Leaving the offenders to roam free and give the rest of us a bad name. Oh! And please, pick up your dog mess! And don't open your front door to leave your dog running free and crapping everywhere! That really isn't helping our cause, there's not such thing as the dog- poo fairy!
I totally agree with you on the point of hidden agenda. I did complete the survey, as I want to have my say, but also found it very "directed" and unfit for purpose. Also, I am rather concerned that, as a dog owner using parks everyday, I only found out about this survey...on this forum. Hmmmm....... As for the dog training classes in the park, we did try to set one up in Rye Hill Park, but it was cancelled as it was subject to heavy bureaucracy and also they wanted money for us running it. So clearly, they're not that interested in promoting responsible dog ownership...

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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