|
|
 |
| |
Dog laws would make owners’ lives a misery
• THE public is being misled by the council‘s plans for dog control orders.
The proposal to prohibit dogs from being off the lead anywhere except in designated exercise areas might not sound too harsh, and indeed may be welcomed by many people who have suffered as a result of irresponsible dog owners.
However, they might be less supportive if they realised that “dog exercise area” is a complete misnomer, for the areas the council has in mind are no such thing. The dog area beside Talacre Gardens is simply a tiny strip of land, no bigger than an average living room, unfenced and next to the road.
Surely, anyone can see that any form of exercise would be impossible in such a space. Without adequate exercise, dogs become frustrated and this frustration can easily become aggression.
Moreover, this is one of only 10 dog areas in the borough. With an estimated 22,000 dogs in Camden, this means each area will be expected to accommodate an average of 2,200 dogs. This is clearly unworkable.
This bye-law will mean in effect that it will be illegal in Camden for a dog to run, play with a ball, be trained to come when called, or in fact be trained in any meaningful way at all. It will also inhibit adequate socialisation.
I am wholly supportive of the council punishing irresponsible dog owners who persist in letting animals foul pavements and parks and run amok, but the plans it is proposing are disproportionate. Using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut will penalise every dog owner in Camden. I urge people to have their say and persuade the council to amend its proposals.
E WILKINS
Bassett Street, NW5
• YOUR article concerning measures to be taken by Camden Council in respect of responsible dog ownership claimed: “The City of London said last week it was considering acting as agent to Camden Council under the scheme, which would extend its jurisdiction to Hampstead Heath” (Fines for dog owners ‘part of crime battle’, March 1)
This is a public consultation being carried out by Camden Council and not the City of London. The proposals concern the council’s property and not Hampstead Heath.
Heath bye laws state that dogs should be “under control at all times”. For those bye-laws to be changed the City of London must carry out a public consultation. The results must be published. It may apply to the Secretary of State through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to alter these existing bye-laws. All of this is entirely independent of anything which the council is proposing.
This mixed message is causing a considerable amount of anxiety among those of us who walk our dogs every day on the Heath.
MC FLAUX
Address supplied
• EXISTING legislation controls people who do not clear up after their dogs or do not keep them under control. I have never seen anyone official enforcing these laws, although other responsible dog walkers often intervene.
These proposals effectively criminalise responsible dog-walking behaviour, and stop dog owners from taking proper care of their animals by providing them with adequate exercise.
Dog owners form an effective ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ on London’s open spaces. The capital would be a far more dangerous place without them.
This proposal is a mis-application of government legislation designed to target specific small areas where there is a problem with dogs, and over a fixed period of time. By enacting this instead over the whole borough, the council proposes the dog equivalent of placing everyone in Camden under a permanent Asbo.
DR LK RATTENBURY
Ainger Road, NW3
• WE can all agree that dogs should be under control in public places and that owners should carry a lead and use it if necessary.
But to cancel the enjoyment of the vast majority of dogs and their owners because of the rogue few would be a gross misuse of power.
It is outrageous that such a proposal should be extended to cover Hampstead Heath, a place with many wild areas where dogs and their owners can take vigorous exercise safely.
MARTIN AND ROSE ISEPP
Parliament Hill, NW3
CAMDEN’S proposals for dog control would have saved me from a significant injury.
At the end of January, on a path on Hampstead Heath by Highgate ponds I was knocked over by a black bull mastiff-type dog, which was being chased by another dog. It all happened at high speed. It slammed into my knee and knocked me over. I was not able to walk and passers-by, kindly, with difficulty, with my friend helped me to a bench, and called an ambulance. The owners of the dog, disgracefully, left without giving their details.
Five weeks later I am still on two crutches, with a fracture and other damage to my knee.
This has caused significant financial loss as well as personal and family distress, and is making additional demands of the hard-pressed NHS.
I am a fit 60-year-old. If this had happened to a more elderly person or a toddler the consequences could have been very serious.
Dogs should be kept on leads in busy areas, and kept under control where permitted off the lead. I understand the pleasures and benefits of owning a dog, but I strongly support actions which will make all dog owners responsible for controlling their dogs.
JUDITH HUNT
Queen’s Crescent, NW5
• AS an American visitor to Camden a few years ago, I enjoyed being a part of a town which was so people and animal friendly.
Now, I read on the internet that the Town Hall wants to introduce a repressive legislation for animal lovers.
This will change the whole ambiance of your town. No longer will it be appreciated for its free-spirited atmosphere, for both people and animals.
Without the charm of dogs frolicking freely with their owners, your town will become a sterile milieu.
JOEL DINA O’CONNELL
East Golf Avenue
Tempe, Arizona
• DOES the council intend to put all adult residents on the lead? Surely, potential murderers, muggers and rapists cause more misery and mess than the few ferocious and offensive dogs.
I am in my ninth decade. My dog is 16 and I consider we are too old to learn new tricks.
JUNE ROSE
Oakeshott Avenue, N6
|
 |
|
|
|
