Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keane

The dog free areas, on lead areas and poo fines are already in place so the council don't need to ask the public whether they want them or to have them enforced. Whatever they are hoping to get the support for, it will be more than the current restrictions. A warden to police these issues would also just be a matter of funding, surely?

People have been talking about a dog ban, on the street as such, not just here on the Forum and it is possible isn't it? I would hate to be hoodwinked into thinking i was filling in a survey for one thing, only to find it being used to promote a larger issue and one I disagree with.

It would be helpful for Southwark to inform everyone of their goal.


Mako

I did pick up a rogue poo in the bushes. Generally though I don't see it in the park, mostly on the pavements tbh.

I'd also just like to say that for every person that dislikes dogs, there is one that loves them but for whatever reason can't or just doesn't have one. I would say on fifty percent of my walks, I get into conversation with people, especially the elderly and people with special needs that want to pet my dog. One lady told me she comes to the park solely to have contact with them as she misses them in her day to day life and one young man out with his carer will stroke any dog he can announcing that you've made his day.

I hope these people see and have a chance to complete the survey too.

Majo, Keane. My 'point' about childreb, cyclists, motorists, drinkers was an attempt to play-back some of the spurious arguments we often hear about dog-owners. I wasn't seriously saying we should have child-free zones or regulations to keep kids in reins. Sorry if the point was badly made or too, err, subtle. We're all aware than amongst any group there will be a few who will break rules and make things unpleasant (drivers who speed, cyclists who use pavements etc.) but we quite rightly see that as a natter of existing rules to be enforced, rather than the imposition of Draconian restrictions on all. And I make my point again: as a community, we should be prying pressure on those who cause problems, rather than resorting to the "authorities" every time. And I certainly don't think I have any greater rights as a tax-payer, but I do have rights akin to others. The Council (and others) frequently dress moves like this up as 'protecting' taxpayers. Well, dog owners pay taxes too. A rather odd point about my puppy not paying taxes though. Presumably not many children do too?!

Er no, it wasnt too 'subtle.' Irrelevant to mention tax -does for example a lower tax payer than you like a teaching assistant or auxiliary nurse or similar have less right to enjoy the parks because they pay less tax than a 'high tax payer?'


I think it's crazy if the council can't carry out a survey without people getting hysterical about banning dogs - no one has ever suggested this. Surely the council are just looking at what the problems are for people who use the parks dog owners & non dog owners etc and maybe they will be more visible about enforcing picking up dog mess etc which surely would make everyone happier apart from the minority of dog owners who don't control their dogs or pick up their poo. I don't see that anyone who is responsible has anything to worry about. And, yes I do like dogs.

Also Harris Boys School planning talked about using areas of Peckham Rye for their outdoor sports, but for some reason this hasn't happened. So Firstmate's suggestion of parks being reclaimed as playing fields is also feasible I think.
Yes but look at the logic - dogs will not be banned just because of one or two dulwich park staff it's extremely unlikely. They won't start the survey with - we welcome dogs to our parks... And then ban them its just not realistic in any way.

None of the state schools round here have playing fields only the private ones. I think Harris did want to use Peckham rye for sport which to me seems like a good idea at certain times of the week - I understood that the reason it hadnt happened was because residents had complained about the school

Doing this though this information may be incorrect. I hope it is incorrect as it would seem churlish to not allow a school opposite a field to use it for some PE lessons - and we wouldn't want to discrimate against young people as well as dogs surely?!

Agreed, I would expect a boys school of 900 ish boys to be able to use the public spaces too.

Keeping those spaces public however is important, apart from maybe between school hours. Assume this would be a health and safety concern.


It comes down to Southwark making their intentions clear.

Not necessarily maybe they are just going to have a more visible patrol re enforcing dog mess pick up? Or maybe they are going to have a dog free section like in Peckham rye? I don't think it looks like they know - I would assume that is why they trying to do a survey. But I don't hold with conspiracy theories about non dog owners being encouraged to do the survey - it's been on the boards & website & given out & posted on here for anyone to take part in. I saw it on a board outside court lane entrance.

There is a dog free section in Dulwich Park and on the lead areas. I'm probably not explaining myself very well (normal for me). To have someone policing these areas and enforcing fines for not picking up poo is already in Southwark's power, I don't get why they need public approval to action this.

I too saw the notice on the court lane notice board but wouldn't have looked unless pointed out to me. Some people saw surveys being handed out, I haven't seen any of them.

They probably don't need to get public approval but if they go ahead with what ever they have in mind they can always say we held a public survey/consultation and taking it to the extreme if only one person wants a dog free park they can say we are implementing what the public want.


Rather like CPZ put up a notice somewhere, a few yes's and there it is done and dusted.


How may people look at notice boards when they go to the park or trawl the Southwark website for such information for fun


Consultations always imply the plan is on the drawing board to be nodded thru


Again what complaints triggered this survey what happens in other parks may not effect Dulwich Park


What is needed is park staff to enforce the rules but are any Southwark still employed

I'd just like to know exactly what they have in mind before committing to a view on it.


If it stated on the survey that they were considering allocating funding for dog wardens to issue fines for fouling and instruct owners to put dogs on leads in the appropriate area, then I'd say yes. If it stated that a dog ban was being considered, I'd say no. The dog control warden they mention in the survey, doesn't say what powers they will have if appointed.


I still think that if there are as many incidents as suggested by the survey, then all households should receive printed notification, as not everyone will be aware of the notices on the noticeboards. If they have been handing them out however as suggested in earlier posts, then it's not been that successful.

keane Wrote:

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

> Yes but look at the logic - dogs will not be

> banned just because of one or two dulwich park

> staff it's extremely unlikely. They won't start

> the survey with - we welcome dogs to our parks...

> And then ban them its just not realistic in any

> way.



I think it's pretty naive to assume that because the council states that they welcome dogs, they are not planning to impose serious restrictions on dogs in parks. The skewed tone of the survey contradicts that statement.


It wouldn't be the first time that in an effort to appear even handed; the council say one thing when their intentions are completely different. Not sure if any of you remember the attempt to sell off huge council estates through various arm?s length management structures and only negative votes of the tenants were counted against their imposition but tenants who failed to vote were counted as yes.

For the same reasons dogs aren't allowed in playgrounds I would think and I wouldn't expect a dog to be running around while school activities are taking place.


Could it be that reducing the space in the parks would force more dogs/families/cyclists/football games to the same areas and that it may have less opposition from the non dog owning community if those areas were exclusively for their use? I don't know anything about the legalities regarding schools using parks spaces though so feel free to put me straight.


I do think it's a good idea for school children to use parks but would hope that ownership of that land would stay as parkland.


Do southwark ever reply to emails?

This thread is hilarious.


Dog owner 1: There is no problem with dogs!


Dog owner 2: What a sensible comment


Dog owner 3: Southwark clearly want to ban all dogs - why not ban children!


Dog owner 4: Yes, I totally agree


Unsurprisingly, dog owners showing zero interest in whether there may be any genuine issue as to whether the current situation best meets the interests of both dog owners and non-owners (or 'canine haters' as they vare apparently known).


I asked earlier in the thread what I thought was a simple question - would it be acceptable for Southwark to decide that a minimum proportion of all public parks be dog-free? (Say 30% by area). A further proportion be dogs on leads only (say another 30%), and the balance unrestricted. The figures I have chosen are arbitrary, but why is there anything wrong in principle?

mako Wrote:

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

> even if the conspiracy was to let schoolchildren

> use the park (and if they havent got anywhere then

> that actually seems like a good idea) why would

> they need to ban dogs?


Six years on....


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,26226,27232#msg-27232

About time, I just hope they put it into action, park wardens who can in force fines I fed up with the dog crap in Peckham Rye. It's the equivalent of me letting my child poo on the floor then walking away, discussing! Same goes for people not keeping dogs on the lead around the pond etc..

That is interesting about letting your child poo - Dulwich Park has a lot of human poo in the bushes near the playground and those near the cafe. I know because my dogs have a rather unfortunate habit of eating human poo. I have seen it - with nappies and wipes. Just as they were consuming it...


I accept that there should be dog free areas - I have both dogs and children. It's frustrating, as a responsible dog owner who has picked up dog poo for more than 20 years, that some dog owners feel they do not need to do it. It spoils it for both other dog owners and families with young children who are quite rightly concerned about the risk.

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...