Jump to content

Recommended Posts

barriedalenick


Can you tell me the dog area in dulwich park that you're referring to? I know that until I read the document from southwark stating on lead, off lead and prohibited areas, that I had got it wrong in places. Some of the signs aren't that well placed.

Having a fence around the central area seems like a sensible idea to me.

I filled out the questionnaire, I'm a dog owner of two dogs. I would like to see fenced lead only areas in parks for those dogs who wish to be walked on lead and not bothered by off lead dogs. My dog was attacked this evening, the other dog was off lead and went straight for her this has happened 3 times now! It was awful, I had to take her straight to the emergency vets where she had 6 neck wounds stapled. She also has four more punctures across her legs and chest. I think dogs should be allowed off lead in parks but would be nice to have a secure area where dogs can be exercised on long leads away from off lead dogs.
terrific turnout yesterday for the fair play for dogs photo session. more than 45 owners and their many dogs were there (not an unpicked up poo in sight) and the pix should be in southwark news later this week. all sensible dog supporters should be at the clock house pub on saturday morning at 10 for a meeting to discuss the campaign.

Chunksmum Wrote:

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

> I filled out the questionnaire, I'm a dog owner of

> two dogs. I would like to see fenced lead only

> areas in parks for those dogs who wish to be

> walked on lead and not bothered by off lead dogs.

> My dog was attacked this evening, the other dog

> was off lead and went straight for her this has

> happened 3 times now! It was awful, I had to take

> her straight to the emergency vets where she had 6

> neck wounds stapled. She also has four more

> punctures across her legs and chest. I think dogs

> should be allowed off lead in parks but would be

> nice to have a secure area where dogs can be

> exercised on long leads away from off lead dogs.



My thoughts exactly. I know how frightening this is, as it's happened to me.

Hope your dog is ok & not too traumatised by the experience.

Thank you aquarius moon, she is in pain and limping today but seems ok in herself. I on the other hand am feeling really anxious about walking either of my dogs outside as I often take my 1yr old with me on walks and this is actually the 6th time she has been bitten by another dog in the park and the owners always say 'oh he/she has never bitten before' this really drives me crazy, there is always a first...stop being irresponsible and letting your dogs run over to dogs on lead unless uninvited. I don't want to but will have kick the next dog that approaches away whether is friendly or not as you can't always tell and I am sick of being left with the vet bill! Rant over, sorry everyone :)

6pm Norwood Grove black 9yr old Staffie. She has been bitten by two staffies, boxer, labradoodle, cocker spaniel & patterdale so it goes to show any breed can attack but in my opinion Staffies seem to do the most damage as they just don't let go and keep biting!

Aquarius moon that's sad you can't take your three to the park, I don't walk my other dog in the park cos he is nervous and if approached on the lead by a dog may pick it up and throw it (he doesn't attack) but has thrown a dog away before that kept jumping up at him. So I walk him on the road instead too but it's frustrating as why can't we walk our dogs in the park because others are irresponsible and let their dog bound over to just anyone. I long for a fenced lead only area if anyone knows of one anywhere, I will drive to it let me know thanks.

Hi Elmgrove, it's at the bottom of Streatham common and no not always in the same park. I never thought to report the attacks it always happens so fast and as she is on a lead really difficult to grab the other dog. I will def try to take a pic if it happens again, this time I did have a conversation with the guy after but he was only the dogwalker and the owner is not answering my calls so looks like I'll be paying the ?260 bill plus whatever the next vet trip costs this wk. Last time we had all the details of the owner and she apologised but when it came down to it her insurance wrote us an email to say it can't of been her as she was with her grandkids at the time, lies and that cost us ?800 as my dog needed eye surgery twice to correct the damage and her eye has never been the same. I'm taking my dog to Oddono's for ice cream tomorrow to cheer her up :)

'I long for a fenced lead only area if anyone knows of one anywhere, I will drive to it let me know thanks.'


Chunksmum - there is already a fenced lead-only area in Peckham Rye Park; the Japanese garden is completely fenced off and dogs are only allowed in there on their leads. You could walk your dog safely there without fear of attack. The Japanese garden is also very close to the park entrance near the cafe on the rye, where the car park is, and also very close to the park warden's office.

Thank you Joseph Holly I never knew that and tend to stick to Dulwich or Norwood Grove with her so will def head down to Peckham Rye. I really appreciate that info, Aquarius moon maybe you could take your Yorkies there too?
Thanks Elmgrove, this is really helpful information. He gave me his number at the time and once I phoned to say we took her to emergency vets the owners number. I will try both numbers again in the morning failing a response the police.

Chunksmum,


I think your experience re the dog walker who had care and custody of the dog that has attacked your dog is awful.


I would contact Trevor Cooper a dog law specialist to see what recourse you can get- I've a feeling you may have to sue the dog walker. If the dog he is walking has attacked your dog or other dogs before then that dog should be on a lead.


I would add, as we know, all dogs are capable of 'having words' and one dog warning off or chastising another can look and sound very frightening but, if normal and proportionate, there is never a bite- as in puncture wounds. The severity of your dog's injuries means the dog that inflicted the damage is a danger to every dog and it needs to be pursued.

Thanks first mate, it was the first time the dog had bitten in 9yrs but then owners always say this and I'm can't be sure that's true or not! I had no idea it was going to attack, they sniffed and all seemed friendly, the other dog held up her front paw and wasn't standing tall face to face with mine or anything like that I recall it was as I pulled my dog away it lunged at her grabbing her face.


Yes I understand first mate as my dog does warn some dogs off if they come close, she goes up on her back legs and barks looks very scary but that's all she does. She is not a biter. But everytime she has been bitten she had never warned the dogs off first, I wish she had. Out of all the times she has been bitten most of them have been the dogs biting and then retreating except by the two Staffies that kept repeatedly biting her and the Boxer who was wrestling with her on the floor trying to pin her down.


Tried to call the owner again but on voicemail so may contact Trevor Cooper later, thanks all for your great advice as usual.

I've just been walking in the park and a dog walker has informed me that there is Peckham Rye Park responsible dog walkers association formed on the back of this survey. Has anyone heard of it or know what it's aims are?

I've just received an online petition about this, it states that they are petitioning mayor of southwark Abdul Mohamed and Rebecca Towers, manager of the parks team. It also states that the council want to increase on lead areas for dogs. I'm not sure whether this is correct information but it's out there now.

Will try to attach a link if I can.


Edited, wrong info...

Initially the main issue people had with the southwark survey was that they claimed that there already was an agenda and this reduced the chance for sensible and reasoned debate. Now that there is effectively a lobby group of dog owners with their own agenda, petitions etc, isnt that exactly the same case. They have already decided that they dont want dog on leads areas, despite many dog owners on here welcoming them and asking for those that do exist to be enforced e.g. Chunksmum. Does this now mean that for balanced debate we need a further lobby group representing other opinions etc? Those signing the petition so far have regularly commented that without dogs this and that, implying a complete dog ban that has never been suggested in any way. Could some clever forum user not produce an easy survey on here asking the key questions such as do you want on lead areas? And then everyone votes and gets a clearer view?

Good point mako, not aware where the petition originated, but posted as it seems to answer the questions some of us had about Southwark's goal in issuing this survey. If it's correct, then decreasing the off lead areas are the target. I can't see more than the first page as away and using my phone to view.

It may well be assuming Southwark's intention but wanted to see what others thought. It was sent to me via Facebook.


The survey here would be a good idea, not something I can manage with my basic computer skills though.

Would be interested to see how everyone feels in a yes/no capacity. It should point out that there are already on lead/off lead/no dog areas in the local parks so do they need enforcing or enlarging etc. it seems that lots aren't aware of those restrictions already in place.

hi all, the responsible dog owners group are trying to find out what is behind the dogs in parks survey. If you start at the beginning of the thread you should get an idea. Councillor Barber is also trying to find out what it is about. There are all sorts of possibilities as to what it might mean and what precipitated the consultation. Talk of 'incididents' but no specifics. There are concerns that all southwark parks are dog on lead only. I think they are trying to get some sort of dialogue going.


I am a dog walker, whose dog loves a good old runabout and a meet and greet with other dogs, and is happy to pick up poo and respect the designated areas etc (that's me not the dog) I would add that I think most owners DO know the rules of th parks. There is always a few plonkers who insist on doing their own thing regardless.

Mako,


Just to clarify. There are already areas of the park (PR) where dogs are not allowed and where it is asked for dogs to be kept on leads. Parkies already have the powers under law to issue on the spot fines for dog fouling. So, the issue is how to get people to adhere to what is already in place. For instance, would Southwark put resources to more Park officers...that is the only way fouling could be reduced, by catching offenders and fining them on the spot.


There is a feeling that Southwark will not want to increase these officers because they don't have the money. So, on that basis, how will they tackle dog fouling? DCO's won't make any difference at all. As an analogy, there would be little point in making more and more legislation against speeding cars without the means (cameras or traffic police) to catch the speeders.


There is really only one way that DCO's could improve dog fouling and that would be a straight ban of all dogs from parks.


The fear about instating dog conrol orders is not about dogs on leads in certain areas per se, it is the fact that once in place the council can extend them as they see fit WITHOUT consultation in future. I hope that is now clear.

I'm just back from a month away and can't go through all the pages of this thread, so sorry if this is a repeat quesiton, but where are the questionaires to be found? I hate it when questionaires are put out by stealth when everyone is away! They did that with the parking.

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...