Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As a daily user of the park - and a liker of dogs too - I have witnessed many occasions where dog owners allow their dogs off the lead, but take responsibility for them, and clear up after them too. I have also witnessed dogs off the lead running straight up to and barking at cyclists (on the tarmac) and runners (on the sand track), and the dog owners shouting very unpleasantly at those cyclists and runners ...?? As a walker, cyclist and runner, it does seem particularly unfair that some (thankfully only a few) dog owners do not seem to realise that it is not that other park-users are scared of their pets, but that their pets are also likely to cause an accident if running straight at legs/wheels (I've encountered both unfortunately), with likelihood of damage to the person as well as to the dogs. Like I said I have no problem with dogs, but owners do need to take responsibility for their pets' behaviour, and if they are likely to run at other park-users then take some sensible action - without shouting at the cyclists/runners preferably.
I make you right mummali, also though I would like to say, I make my dogs come and wait whilst cyclists/joggers are going by, if I hear them quick enough, some are so fast, some see me making them wait and nod of thanks or verbally thank me, nice, others just whizz past without saying a word, the worst culprits are dads at the front, with children on bikes behind, NOT ALL, some do say thanks, but if someone were waiting for me to pass and I had children I would teach them to say thanks in passing too, politeness costs nothing.

BB I agree, good manners cut both ways. A fair number of cyclists like to power cycle through the parks and I have been startled a number of times walking my dog out of the park. On these occasions the cyclist bears down at top speed, approaching from behind and giving no warning.


Many, many times I have stood aside to let parents and toddlers go through park entrances first, without a thank you or acknowledgement of any kind....they are not deliberately rude, they are simply oblivious, the same goes for the power cyclists and for those who walk their dogs without consideration for others.


We all need to be more aware of others and that parks are shared spaces. Courtesy and consideration all round is the answer.

Parks are shared spaces but not all type of users should have equal use of all parts. The playground is clearly for children, the marked football pitches for playing football and the track area is primarily for disabled car drivers, cyclists, roller skaters etc who cannot use any other part of the park. It is not primarily for those walking dogs who have plenty of other areas to walk their dogs. For starters they could start by using the areas where there is a path rather than the track. saying to cyclists they cant go fast is comparable to saying dogs can come but shouldnt run fast.

Mako, no dogs should not be allowed to run at strange people at top speed and in the same way, neither should cyclists, especially if they are approaching from behind. Quite apart from that there are speed limits in the park, cyclists could use bells to warn they are approaching and, finally, cyclists and joggers also like to use the perimeter path in the summer months (the area known as the dog walk) and some get annoyed when dogs are there too.


I don't think that anyone has suggested that dogs should use the children's playgrounds or football pitches when games are being played or teams are warming up/training.....have they? So not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point i am making is that in most areas different users have priority. Dog walkers complaining about cyclists on the track do not need to be there, so shouldnt complain if a cyclist comes close to them. The point about the other areas is that it is accepted that these are for particular users, whereas the dog walkers see themselves as equal users of the track which I dont think they should.

Mako, areas of the park to which dog owners can have access with dogs on lead would be inaccessible without some use of the track, so your point does not stand. Perhaps you are confusing areas of access off lead and areas of access on lead? Dog owners may use the track with dogs on lead,anywhere, any time, they have as much right to be there as any other park user.


On a personal note, I have been startled a number of times on the track by cyclists approaching very close from behind, at speed and without any warning, when my dog has been on a short lead. It has felt as though I was missed by inches.

Mako, areas of the park to which dog owners can have access with dogs on lead would be inaccessible without some use of the track,

This is not true. There is a path. What bit of the park do you need to walk on the road (walk on not cross) to get to. There isnt one.

Dog owners may use the track with dogs on lead,anywhere, any time, they have as much right to be there as any other park user.

As you know the point I am making is that they shouldnt have as much right to be there as they do not need to be there to walk their dogs. They can use the paths or the grass.

On a personal note to avoid being startled get off the track. Use the path or grass. Cyclists need the hard surface as do roller skaters, buggy pushers etc. you do not so be aware of others, or stop moaning that cyclists are cycling near you.

What do dog owners think of dog nappies?


I always thought our problem with dog poo could be resolved by requesting dogs wear dog nappies when out in the park... that way the non-responsible dog owning minority are very clearly recognisable as such...

Mako,

you are missing the point- according to the byelaws dog owners have as much right to use the track, provided their dog is on lead, as any other park user. The question of 'need'as you put it is subjective.


I would imagine that children on roller skates and mums pushing buggies may also feel threatened by cyclists speeding excessively..I am sure that feeling is not unique to dog owners. Unless you are suggesting that cyclists give other park users a wider berth?


Anyway, we will not agree on this point and I see little to be gained by continuing.


Vanessa PMR- I think dog nappies are an utterly bizarre idea, but I feel sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

First Mate, you often make some very good points however despite your call for consideration for others, when it comes down to it you let yourself down by joining the 'I have rights brigade'. It is not about a legal right it is about showing some consideration for others. cyclists, buggies etc need the tarmac. You and your dog dont. So keep off or stop moaning and please dont avoid the questions you cant answer such as where it is not possible to use the path or simply cross the tarmac to get to a dog area as this weakens your more valid posts.

Cyclists obviously should slow down or give a wide berth to mums or dads pushing buggies, they shouldnt need to to dogs or their owners because they dont need to be there. Why go on the track. GO ON THE PATH

in fact your quoting of byelaws goes back to my point about football pitches and playgrounds.You are allowed to picnic on the football pitch, you can play football in the playground, you can walk your dog on the only bit where cyclists can go. But in taking this inconsiderate stance you lose your rights to moan if things arent perfect for you when you do so.

VanessaPMR Wrote:

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

> What do dog owners think of dog nappies?

>

> I always thought our problem with dog poo could be

> resolved by requesting dogs wear dog nappies when

> out in the park... that way the non-responsible

> dog owning minority are very clearly recognisable

> as such...


That's genius, right there :-)

Mako, it is your assumption that dog owners will only ever need or want to walk on grass, there could be various reasons why the dog owner prefers to stay off grass and walk on a hard surface.


I believe that it is reasonable for dog owners to keep dogs on a lead on the track area. I also think it is reasonable for cyclists to adhere to park speed limits and to slow down if other users of the track ( mums and buggies, elderly and disabled, children, joggers, roller skaters, dog walkers etc..) are in clear view. I think this shows consideration on both sides, I don't understand what it is about this that irks you so.


Anyhow, I really will sit on my hands after this as we risk going on and on........

I'm very confused now. Some posters seem to be suggesting that dogs should be on leads when using the tarmac road area - is that right?


I use the park for cycling and walking and playing with the kids. When I cycle I go slowly (I know what it's like when you're a pedestrian and a bike whizzes past) but I find the dogs very very hard to predict especially when they're being walked in a group and off the lead. They're just playing, I know, but they run out without warning, run across the path, zig-zag etc etc and, obviously, don't heed a bell or a "look out". Even going at a leisurely pace I've nearly come a cropper because of a dog several times in the last week.


I don't want to see dogs restricted in the park but I've been watching this thread with interest. This morning, when I had to break for a dog off the lead that suddenly changed direction and ran across my path nearly causing injury to it and me to fall off, I tried to talk to the dog owner who was very very defensive. I hope I wasn't rude, I certainly didn't mean to be. I just felt that there had been a near miss and I was concerned. I asked about the dogs on lead rule (I remain unclear) and the dog walker angrily assured me that she was in the right. I said that I knew it was a shared park and I tried to go slowly but that dogs were so unpredictable on the path. Like toddlers. she said. Which I suppose they are (if a little more bitey and fast). Also, I've had toddlers and, I suppose, if I were walking down a shared path I'd keep an eye on them and make sure they weren't likely to get hurt. I remember we'd often move onto the grassy areas because I knew there were fewer hazards and we could be more relaxed/

There is a path around the perimeter edge of Dulwich Park but not the track that goes through it. For many reasons the central track is popular with all park users, the wooded path area that runs parallel to it is also used by pedestrians and cyclists alike. In other parks, like PR, paths into the park are non existant, there is only track.


Bawdy Nan,I believe that in Dulwich Park dogs should be kept on a lead on the track. My sympathies are with you in this case, you were showing awareness of your surroundings and the other park user should have done the same. I guess we have all had some near misses. That said I think most of us rub along well and the park is generally a happy place to be.

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...