dogs off leads petition

[Asset]

Sean, I don't think anyone has dismissed anybody's fear of dogs on this thread, and I think James probably had his tongue in his cheek.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Asset

Oops - I'm using inflammatory language again perhaps. Sorry.

But it could be argued that if we have comments like "if this law gets through I will be breaking it" then that is what is happening?

Ok only one person has expressed it so blatantly but it seems to be not so far removed from the general vibe - or am I reading it wrong?

[Asset]

can't see which one, or is it me? I don't think I've been dismissive of a fear of dogs, personally terrified of wasps, much more irrational.:-$

[boosboss]

Dog owning residents in Camden can breath a sigh of relief, as Camden Council have reworked their proposed dog control orders, after consultation with KC Dog, the national dog owner?s group run by the Kennel Club.

Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, which came into force in 2006, local authorities have had increased powers over dog owners all over the UK, and are able to issue dog control orders.

Originally it seemed Camden?s proposed dog control orders would have meant dogs would have had to be kept on leads in parks and open green spaces (not designated as dog exercise areas) and excluded from monuments and shrubbery. In addition dog control orders were proposed to limit the number of dogs a person would have been allowed to walk together.

Dog control orders such as these could have had serious implications for the animals? welfare, as dogs require vigorous exercise, which would be compromised if they were not allowed to be exercised off the lead.

Since taking deputations in the Council from KC Dog, and concerned KC Dog participants, Camden Council is now limiting dog control orders to dog fouling, keeping dogs on leads only when directed to do so, and excluding dogs only from areas such as children?s play areas and flower beds. In addition Camden Council will only issue fixed penalty notices to dog owners if they refuse to comply with requests from authorised officers.

http://www.swindon.gov.uk/dogcontrolorders

Southwark Council could learn a lot from both Camden and Swindon Councils.

[SeanMacGabhann]

T'wasn't you Asset - it was .. someone else a couple of posts up from me

Good luck with the bee-leashes by the way ;-)

As debates go I think this one is being contested fairly well overall - but if we are really going to start taking advice from Swindon council I am worried (lived there for 3 years)

[James]

I think it's perfectly understandable that dog-owners are getting a bit irate about this attack on their animals' freedom - justified by the behaviour of a minority. I too get frustrated with both the Staffie totin' chavs and the irritating yummy mummies who inflict their drooling dogs on others. But my dog is well-trained and well behaved. So why should she suffer?

Incidentally, I chose those socio-economic groups on purpose as a statement about discrimination and tarring everyone with the same brush. Sean your suggestion that because some people are scared of dogs, all should be put on leads is pretty absurd. Some old people are scared of hoodies walking along the street (understandably I think) but that doesn't mean we impose a curfew on all children & adolescents. Some people don't like kids running about in pubs - fine, go to one that doesn't accept them. But nobody would suggest a borough-wide ban, would they?

Similarly the comparison of this with the smoking law is nonsense because if I smoke in a sealed room, my passive smoke goes everywhere. Wheareas my dog pooing does not affect anyone (I pick it up, and yes you can see where it is if your dog is off-lead) and she does not hassle other park users as I am a responsible owner. She does not "run wild" or "bark late at night" either.

Incidentally I would be all for the reintroduction of dog licenses to prevent people breeding menacing, dangerous dogs (the fault lies with humans, not animals for this as with the right upbringing, Staffies can be loving, harmless dogs).

So no, I am not going to "swallow my pride" - any more than you would if you were discriminated against because of other people's misdemeanours.

[SeanMacGabhann]

James - the point I made boils down to "dogs are not like other doemsticated animals. There is a reason they are not allowed to roam free"

And I think you can agree on that point. But all of the wider argument stems from there. I fail to see how a human "owning" a dog and in many (very responsible, not related to bad owners) cases keeping same dog indoors all day while at work equates to the same concern about the animals "freedom". Again no other animal appears to attract the same levels of emotion

What I'm saying is I can understand why people might want to see dogs restricted. I am not about to sign a petition FOR the introduction of a leash anymore than I am against the introduction. But the discussion has happened so I'm trying to present my thoughts on it - reading through the several posts I have made you can see that I have been a dog owner and why I don't keep dogs now. So I am not anti dog or their owners.

But I would like to see a bit more from those against the restrictions than "my dog is lovely and I'm responsible with it" - both may be true but the argument is bigger and it goes back to the premise - "Dogs are just not like any other domesticated animal"

But even old people afraid of hoodies know that hoodies are human beings with inherent responsibilities and must be judged by their actions - not their potential actions. Dogs are dogs and are required to have an owner because left wild they will behave in the manner that so many people worry about. Even on a leash, when taken for a walk the sudden, violent outbursts when meeting another dog does affect other people. And you might say those people need to get over themselves and a part of me agrees with that but dogs do seem to tap in to some primal fear for a lot of people

[James]

Again, please stop making all these judgments about dog owners! Our dog has two long walks every day, and I too do not approve of dogs that are kept cooped up at home all day long. (Neither do I approve of dogs that are never allowed off leash.) My dog is happy, healthy and has a great quality of life - at nobody's expense!

You seem to confuse a dog being off-lead with a dog that's out of control. In fact, there is little correlation between the two. I have seen many dogs on a tight lead literally dragging their ownners along with pent-up frustration. Whereas my dog remains under my complete control when she is off-lead, as most well-behaved dogs do. Again, a bad minority of owners means we are all tarred with the same brush.

[ClareC]

I'm with you on this one James. The vast majority of dogs being walked in the parks are well behaved dogs being walked off the lead by responsible owners. Conversely, the minority to whom you refer more often that not already keep their dogs on a lead - we have all seen them and we all give them a wide berth!

Lead or no lead makes no difference to the "mess" issue, owners either pick up or don't! Again, in my experience its more often the lead walked dogs whose owners fail to pick up.

I walk in Dulwich Park, Peckham Rye and Nunhead Cemetry and have done so for 4 months now, in that time I havent witnessed any threatening dogs.

I am surprised by all these references to dogs bothering children, I havent seen this at all, although rarely walk in the park at peak times. I have however experienced (on numerous occasions) children going up to my dogs uninvited and trying to grab / stroke them. Sometimes they have then chased after them when the dog moves out of their way.

The parks are open spaces for the community as a whole to enjoy, I agree that antisocial behaviour that ruins the enjoyment of others should be addressed - whether that is dog mess / vandals / badly behaved children etc. It would far easier and cheaper to police the antisocial park users than to invoke a blanket ban that affects a large proportion, the vast majority of that proportion being responsible and not causing any harm / anxiety to others.

[spirit]

Have only recently joined the forum and have only lived in ED for 7 years but I have lived in London all my life and grown up with dogs in parks as varied as Hampstead Heath, Clissold Park, Finsbury Park and Victoria Park, Hackney, all of which allowed them off the lead when i was growing up and to my knowledge still do. I've had times when I've had a dog and times when I haven't but I can honestly say that I'd rather they were walking around in a park off the lead in appropriate areas behaving as animals are supposed to.

I once had a dog attacked by a pit bull on a lead - it was still brutal and traumatic and the owner was indifferent. I've also seen people allow their dogs to shit whilst on the lead and not pick it up. I've seen joggers who are so intent on making their distance/time they don't seem to care who's sharing the footpath with them and I've seen parents who allow their children to dominate public spaces in ways that are anti-social to others.

None of us are perfect but we all have to learn to share public space, no single interest group should be allowed to dominate and byelaws shouldn't be passed without a proper consultation. Peckham Rye Park and Goose Green already have areas where dogs are not permitted and Peckham Rye has an additional area where dogs already have to be kept on a short lead.

The Friends of Peckham Rye Park have worked hard to attract funding to have the park restored and make it safe and clean, a great many of them own dogs, so I expect they are taking this rather personally. I think it's sad that so many people in this area are anti-dog, I thought it had more going for it than that, i.e a sense of perspective.

[ClareC]

Well said!

I agree and your right, it is very sad!

[SeanMacGabhann]

A succession of good posts there from the anti-leash half of the debate, all well argued. I hope that re-reading my posts it's clear I'm not anti-dog (as I've said I have owned several etc) but I can definitely understand others fears. I haven't generalised dog-owners (I have used the word "many" in an argument - not "all", or "most") as bad. And I'm not even pro keeping the dogs leashed ( I have a slight leaning that way in urban landscapes but not enough to impose it as law on others)

There is no question that a leashed dog does not mean a well-behaved dog and with the wrong owner the dog suffers even more. And as spirit points out, anti-social behaviour extends to a whole bunch of activities ( I might even sign a keep-joggers-leashed-bill) (joke) - but a leashed dog (goes the argument) does reassure those people who have a fear of dogs. A leashed pitbull owned by a feckless owner might attack another dog but is less likely to do so to a passing human

I'm not sure why the dog-owning friends of Peckham Rye would take this debate personally however - it seems fairly heart-felt. Maybe several people on here do hate dogs - perhaps they could explain why. But there is a difference between fear of the power of dogs versus hating them?

[bawdy-nan]

I agree that it feels a very sad thing if dogs are always to be kept on leads. Interaction with animals is a good thing for humans.

If I think of a park one of the things that springs to mind immediately is dogs having fun and I'm not even much of a dog fan. I've never owned one and I am infuriated by the mounds of poo I have to negotiate down crystal palace road.

I don't think its surprising that children are scared by dogs, especially of they re running at them with their big mouths open and a lolloppy hammy tongue heading towards their face... and, if your dog responds so badly to being stroked or approached by humans, perhaps it really ought to be on a lead when it is amongst humans ...

My kids like to see the dogs in the park but they mostly like to see them from relatively far away.

Is there any indication as to why southwark feel it is necessary to introduce these restrictions?

In Hammersmith it was in response to some attacks, evidence of illegal dog fighting and training for fights in parks and the "nuisance" of professional dog-walkers clogging up streets with excess pooches and poo.

[ClareC]

"and, if your dog responds so badly to being stroked or approached by humans, perhaps it really ought to be on a lead when it is amongst humans ..."

My dogs are well behaved dogs who enjoy the company of humans, they do not behave badly when being approached. The point I was making is that not all dogs make a nuisance of themselves and give unwanted attention to children, many children give unwanted attention to dogs and their parents fail to teach them the correct way to behave.

No human would like to be grabbed at / chased by a stranger in the park, yet you imply this is acceptable treatement for a dog and automatically assume that that my dogs behave badly to humans when I gave no indication as to what their reaction is other than simply saying "if they move away".

For the record my dogs enjoy attention from strangers, however, they love walks and when they are on a walk they are less interested in being made a fuss of and more interesed in enjoying their walk and their freedom. They dont react badly at all they just have better things to do and want to get on with those things.

I have experienced many children who have asked if my dogs are friendly and can they stroke them, I reply in the positive and both the children and the dogs enjoy the interaction they have.

[jackangel]

As in any other ?community? (from cyclists to Tonka toy drivers) there are both irresponsible and model members within dog owners. There are, however, a great many gradations in between. In reality, we probably all slip in and out of several different gradations in our own chosen activity ? that?s a human characteristic.

Dogs poo, on or off the lead. Many owners, possibly most of the time, clear it up. But there is still quite a lot of it about. Fox, pigeon and cat poo, vomit, spilled food and chewing gum (to name a few) can also be a nuisance, but they do not seem to be as obvious or prevalent as dog poo in some public spaces. I can?t see a dogs on leash regulation changing this.

There is clearly a fear of dogs; whatever the actual attack statistics, the fear part is real. Attacks can be reported to the police or wardens (good luck!), but imagine reporting a dog slobbering in your baby?s face in its pram, or the panic felt by some people when small dogs run at them barking and snapping ? are you some kinda weirdo? A dogs on leash regulation might change this.

Many people gain great pleasure/benefit from their animals. Keeping dogs is one of the oldest human habits, and the point previously made about dog walkers adding to the safety of quiet areas is a good one. But I worry when dog owners do not seem to possess the imagination to understand other people?s feelings or the (albeit ??very unlikely/nearly impossible?) potential for harm to others. Absolute confidence in the future actions of an animal seems misplaced when we look at our everyday experience of living things.

I haven?t yet decided whether to sign up to the petition. If we attempt to solve every difficulty of coexistence with special and selective rules instead of insisting that existing established law is enforced, then we will be driven further and further apart.

[James]

A dog "slobbering in your baby's face in its pram"? Um, does this happen often!?

Just because some people are afraid of dogs is no reason to put them all on leashes. The actual genuine threat is confined to a tiny number of dogs of particular breeds being raised by people who should never be allowed to own them in the first place. I for one wish the police/RSPCA had greater powers to prevent these people owning them.

[ClareC]

I agree, there are certain people attracted to owning certain breeds for entirely the wrong reasons. The sad part is that these dogs act the way they do because of the way they are (mis)treated, in a decent home these dogs would not act in this manner. If the RSPCA / Police had greater powers then this problem could be significantly reduced.

Everybody fears something, whether it be dogs, spiders, snakes..... cats even! The list is endless and the fears needn't be rational to be real. I can and do sympathise with those who fear dogs but the answer to the problem isnt to place unreasonable restrictions on those that have done no wrong.

[Alan Dale]

removed

[*Bob*]

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> I understand that dogs can provide therapy for

> people with mental issues

Al.. get a dog - before it's too late.

[Keef]

I've only just looked at this thread, and wish I'd done so earlier! I love dogs, people have been letting dogs run loose for years, and it's only because of a couple of recent high profile attacks by very dangerous fighting animals that shouldn't have been bred, owned by people that should be locked up, that this whole thing has come up. I genuinely think that if you're afraid of dogs, you should just stay away from places that you'll find dogs, simple!

[Alan Dale]

removed

[James]

In response to you Alan, if a dog jumps up on me and/or hassles me and/or was to jump on my picnic blanket I would give it a damn good telling off. And I would expect an apology from the owner. Just as if a small child started drooling on me or stealing my Jaffa cakes, I would refrain from kicking it. I would raise the issue with the parent, as I am a civilized, tolerant member of society. Considering your last post, I wonder whether you are?

[Alan Dale]

removed

[Keef]

Yep Alan, sometimes people have read stuff on here that they find abhorrent...

[ClareC]

Alan, would you kick a person / child if you didnt like their behaviour?

If a dog misbehaves then it should be disciplined, and the owner should apologise. Violence isn't discipline.

btw this is NOT a child analogy.