|
|
 |
| |
Evict council tenants with fighting-type dogs in flats
• I SEE we are starting out on the annual witch-hunt regarding dogs in flats. Not every dog owner is an irresponsible lout.
We had a rescue dog, admittedly in a large flat, for 15 years. He is still missed following his death five years ago.
He was never allowed out on his own, was always kept on a lead, went for several walks every day and was one of the family. One day a Jack Russell ran out from some bushes and bit his face. This resulted in a vets’ bill of £100, and the loss of his two front teeth.
I pointed out to his owner that it could have been a child’s face and she simply walked away laughing. We were tempted to try to take legal action against her for failing to keep her dog under control but she was long-term unemployed.
The gangs of boys parading around the streets, parks and estates are not dog lovers. They are little men who like to have a big, fierce dog to intimidate other people. You can see it on many estates.
Most dogs are not naturally aggressive. They are made this way by mindless morons. The council is responsible for the people it is housing and it should not be beyond it to tell these tenants and their children that if they continue to keep fighting-type dogs, and in some cases to breed dogs in council flats, they will be evicted.
The first step should be a sensible dog licence of £250, all dogs to be registered at birth, to have passports similar to those required for horses and each dog to be routinely micro-chipped. Obviously, there would need to be concessions for pensioners but not for the unemployed.
Dogs should not be bred in social housing. At present, dogs are being bred in tenants’ flats and frequently disappear only for a new pair of dogs to reappear after a few days.
Breeders should have to lodge a large sum of money with the council and be required by law to ensure that any puppies, from the Heinz 57 breed to the most expensive pedigrees, are going to a suitable home before they are sold. Random checks could be carried out to ascertain that the dog, the chip and passport all tally.
Sadly, the reasons for people wanting a dog are not always the right ones. Quite often it possibly goes to a line of people hanging around waiting for their drug dealers, who frequently are accompanied by large dogs. Maybe we should put down the drug dealers and keep the dogs.
V Murphy
Dombey Street, WC1
• I HAVE followed the recent correspondence on dog fouling with great interest. As one of Islington’s many responsible dog owners, I am not against fines. However, one only has to walk down any street to see that fines alone, without adequate supporting measures, have not solved the problem of fouling and irresponsible dog ownership.
Is it possible to have specific answers from the council to the following questions (I have tried to get answers from relevant departments without success)? If other boroughs can take the following measures why not in Islington?
Can we have more litter bins, placed strategically, say approximately every 100 yards?
Where does one get pooper bags? If they were more easy available there would be no excuse for the hard-core offenders?
Do dog wardens liaise with and give sessions in schools on responsible dog ownership? I have been extremely concerned to see growing numbers of macho youths on our streets with threatening and possibly abused Staffordshire bull terriers not on leads.
It also worries me to read in the Tribune how plain-clothes “vigilantes” are being used to administer fines. What are their numbers, how are they recruited, trained and supported? How does their role differ or complement that of dog wardens?
Islington, an inner-city borough, has less green space than any other borough. The letters on dog fouling are yet another demonstration of the pressure on limited and shrinking shared green space and the loss of mature trees (for example, on Rheidol Green) and the extent of local tensions that are aroused as a result.
The successful management of dog fouling must not be seen in isolation but in the context of Islington’s management and protection of the environment as a whole. Central to this is successfully balancing the pressure for housing development with the retention of our existing green space and natural environment.
Why are developers being allowed to flout their own environmental guidelines in a conservation area when local people are restricted by the CA4 directive (for example, the monstrosity of the sports hall at Islington Green School)?
Regarding the failure to monitor and enforce building developments, it’s up to local people to tell the council about flagrant breaches of plans (the latest is the appearance of an electricity sub-station which was not shown on plans available for public consultation).
Finally, thank you, Tribune. You are the only independent voice for local people to use. Keep up the good work.
K Rowan
N1
|
| |
|
|
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
