SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Dog control
Author Message
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #21
04-06-2008 03:39 PM

Plastic bags do not bio-degrade so should not be used for poo collection. Surely dog owners who leave poo spread across the pavement are helping the environment.

Of course while people are complaining that eating meat is evil in a world where the land could be used for growing crops to feed hungry people, there cannot be anything worse than growing crops to feed to animals which are in turn feed to other animals which serve no practical purpose. At least with bio-fuels they get you from A to B, but a dog in a city is just a waste of resources. In the words of another thread - it's a disgrace to health and the environment.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vipes


Posts: 145
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #22
05-06-2008 08:05 AM

Applespider wrote:
I'm not a dog-owner but I'll defend them since the majority of people walkings dogs that I see in this area seem to have them well under control and pick up any poo. I did see one guy with a husky-type in Dulwich Park about to leave the poo but I made a point of asking if he was going to clear it up and offered him an old carrier. Smile He did.

There are irresponsible people who own dogs and don't police their actions. There are irresponsible parents who don't teach their kids any discipline so we end up with teenagers roaming the streets and vandalising public property quite aside from spoiling all those quiet pubs :p.

Perhaps licenses for both dogs and kids? :p


So your best defence is most dogs seem under control, someone picked up some poo after you asked him to and some kids are out of control. I've seen more forcefully put arguments.

The tongue in cheek ending doesn't negate the fact this post yet again equates dogs and children. Unbelievable.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Applespider


Posts: 285
Joined: Feb 2006
Post: #23
05-06-2008 09:24 AM

Sorry, I hadn't realised that the SE23 forum required the same debating skills as the Oxford Union.

Without access to statistics, both our arguments come down to personal views. Yours seem to suggest that the majority of dogowners are irresponsible therefore we should make it tougher to own dogs. Mine are that I believe it's a minority of irresponsible owners and that it's harsh on the good owners to make their life difficult.

And yes, I could have picked on irresponsible lazy drivers, irresponsible cyclists, irresponsible litterlouts in my example but the expected reaction to using kids was well worth it. Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vipes


Posts: 145
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #24
05-06-2008 10:20 AM

Applespider wrote:
Without access to statistics, both our arguments come down to personal views. Yours seem to suggest that the majority of dogowners are irresponsible therefore we should make it tougher to own dogs. Mine are that I believe it's a minority of irresponsible owners and that it's harsh on the good owners to make their life difficult.

And yes, I could have picked on irresponsible lazy drivers, irresponsible cyclists, irresponsible litterlouts in my example but the expected reaction to using kids was well worth it. Rolleyes


To live in a city and keep a pet that requires precious open space - and as a result to render that open space at least less appealing and at worst dangerous to humans is surely by default an act of irresponsibility towards one's fellow humans.

And while you claim to have selected "kids" to compare with dogs to cause a "rolling eyes" inevitable reaction (clever that) if you leaf through you'll see most of the arguments against restricting dogs from parks on this forum have done the same. A coincidence perhaps?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #25
05-06-2008 10:23 AM

Dog bounds up, barking.

"Aww, you're alright, he won't hurt you, he loves people."

"That's what the owners of the two dogs that bit me both said."

"[silence]"

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #26
05-06-2008 10:25 AM

Oh, I've said that before, haven't I? Never mind. No less interesting than usual.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #27
05-06-2008 11:10 AM

This is a very serious subject mainly due to the increase of trophy dogs by the benifit and criminal fraternity. Surely people on government hand outs should not be able to afford to own a dog, but apparently they are.
Cannot see dog licenses being brought back or if they are I am sure monitororing will be a problem.
How about the RSPCA be asked to vet all new dog owners. Anyone who does not obey should be prosecuted and the dog destroyed

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #28
05-06-2008 11:57 AM

brian wrote:
How about the RSPCA be asked to vet all new dog owners. Anyone who does not obey should be prosecuted and the dog destroyed


Can we ask them to do it for prospective parents too?

(another link to Applespiders dogs & kids connection?)

P.S. Couldn't decide which/how many smileys to use, so didn't use any...

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
admin
Administrator

Posts: 424
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #29
10-10-2008 10:08 AM

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

Media Release: 10 October 2008
PR556

Consultation on proposed Dog Control Orders

Lewisham Council is asking residents for their views on new Dog Control Orders that it wants to introduce.

New legislation, under Section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005), will give local authorities extra powers to take action and enforcement against dog owners who do not comply with new rules.

Lewisham Council wants anyone who owns a dog to behave in a responsible manner, and the vast majority of people do. There are, however, a small number of people who do sometimes act irresponsibly. These are the people the Council wishes to be able to take action against, if they break the proposed new regulations.

Councillor Susan Wise, Cabinet Member for Customer Services, said: ?As members of the public, we have the right to walk Lewisham's streets and in our parks and green spaces without being afraid of uncontrolled dogs, or of stepping in dog faeces.

?Lewisham Council wants to introduce new enforcement powers that will enable us to take action against people who act irresponsibly by not controlling their dogs, or by allowing them to foul our footpaths and green spaces."

It is hoped that the introduction of the Dog Control Order Act, which carries a ?75 on-the-spot fine, will enable the Council to deal with irresponsible dog owners far more effectively.

Proposed offences that will attract an on-the-spot fine are:

Failing to remove dog faeces
Not keeping a dog on a lead in designated areas (these will be sign-posted in public areas)
Not putting, and keeping, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer
Permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded
Taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.

The public consultation period runs from Monday 13 October to Friday 14 November. Members of the public who wish to comment can do so via an online survey found at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk. Residents can also call 020 8314 7171 or email dogcontrolorders@lewisham.gov.uk for more information.

A map of proposed designated areas, a copy of the Dog Control Orders Regulations and a questionnaire can all be viewed in the Town Hall in Catford as well as five libraries across the borough:

Lewisham
Catford Library (in Lawrence House)
Downham
Forest Hill
Wavelengths (in Deptford)

Councillor Wise added: ?It is important that we get these new Control Orders right and take on board peoples? views, so please tell us what you think by taking part in the survey.?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
roz


Posts: 1,796
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #30
10-10-2008 12:14 PM

Sounds fine by me.

After recent experience of having a large dog run at full speed towards my baby in the pram nearly knocking it over and the owner effing and blinding at me when I said something, combined with the fact that the Horniman Triangle playground is knee deep in dog poo, I think this type of order is a long time coming.

I recently visited a local childminder who had a large dog within jumping distance of the childrens play area. They were so adamant that ' their' dog loved children and presented no risk. Like heck. Needless to say we didn't place our child there.
I do think some owners attribute human reasoning characteristics to dogs and become blind to the fact that these are in fact still animals with unpredictable behaviour patterns. They cannot be entirely controlled and should not be around children full stop.

The recent experience in Mitcham was frightening to hear. A pit bull cross escaped from its owners garden and went berserk attacking a young child including dragging it along for some distance. If the child had been smaller it would surely have been killed. Its a miracle that the baby in question escaped with such minor injuries after its ordeal.

Apart from the local authority actions described, we need more national legislative protection against certain breeds.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #31
10-10-2008 01:56 PM

Sounds great in theory. Dangerous breeds owned by trophy owners should be banned totally.
Is there a place for a rottweiler or pitbull or staffterrier in a big city, they should be culled.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,516
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #32
10-10-2008 03:16 PM

lol @ culling. There is plenty of room for people to keep dogs, even in built up areas, as long as they are responsible to travel to exercise them, and to do that in a responsible manner. Which sadly is where the problem lays.

Walking in Crystal Palace is SO different to Mayow, although there are a lot of dogs off the lead, they are far better socialised, and im far less worried about having my dog there (on a lead)

I would however still welcome more dog control in both parks.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields