The mandatory public consultation period for the council's proposed new dog control laws, closed on Monday 30th. Nov.

A small group of representatives gathered at the Civic Centre and presented the Mayor, Cllr. James Vickers, with the final petitions and letters, from the public. The local press attended. The article appeared in the Surrey Advertiser the following Friday.

This issue has raised a massive public reaction with thousands replying to the proposals. It has been reported from a reliable source, that the council have never before received such a huge response. One local reporter told me that he had received more letters on this subject than any other. Due to this level of feedback, the council has decided to bring forward the debate to an earlier timeframe than originally planned.

As far as we are aware, at last count, the council had received 1,698 petition signatures, 1,348 letters of objection (conservative estimate), and over 3,000 council questionnaires were returned with 90% of these being opposed to the orders.

The reasons for such a significant reaction against the orders, can in essence, be summarised as this:    

They are    unnecessary,    unreasonable,   unworkable,   unenforceable,   and   uneconomical.

Unnecessary, because all dog related matters which might cause any concern, are already covered by perfectly adequate bye-laws. The Dog Fouling Act of 1996 and the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 both deal with almost every aspect mentioned in the new orders.

The case for ground nesting birds on heath-land areas is tenuous. The existence of these birds, at the present time, is at best, hypothetical. If any such birds should appear in the future, then surely, they would be far more affected by many passing wildlife creatures not to mention human traffic. Why have dogs been singled out as the main hypothetical problem?

We are told that dogs paddling or swimming in our ponds might affect the pond-life such as dragonflies. These, admittedly, lovely creatures have managed to survive various ice ages, wars, famines, plagues and pestilence since prehistoric times. It seems a stretch of the imagination that the 1% of pond edge used by dogs would have much effect on the remaining 99% of the pond in which dragonflies and whatever else can happily thrive and survive as they have done for countless years. In truth, is this not just a case of the council pettifogging?

As in all walks of life, there is, unfortunately, always an inconsiderate minority as who will offend, no matter what laws and orders are in place, and spoil things for the rest of us.  We all, dog owners or not, disapprove of bad dog/owner behaviour. To tar everyone with the same brush and penalise all responsible dog owners, by treating them as potential criminals, with these draconian and over restrictive orders, is not a reasonable solution to the problem. The implementation of the orders would not ensure the obedience of the irresponsible few.  They would, doubtless, continue to flout the new orders just as they flout the current laws.  We would prefer to see a policy of - “Educate Not Legislate”.

We have been informed that the only way these orders are going to be policed, is by the current council officers.  This would seem a highly improbable achievement. Without resorting to the added expense of employing a patrolling force, which we can ill afford, in reality the council can only rely on the public to uphold the orders. It would be a shame to create a situation, where good law abiding citizens are put in a position where they are tempted to disregard the law because they see no sense in it.

The massive insufficiency of dog waste bins throughout the borough is an issue worthy of the council’s attention.  We are told that the shortage is due to expense.  This beggars belief! ...... could it be, perhaps, that funds are being grossly misdirected !?!  The time and money spent on this consultation alone has been terribly wasteful of valuable public resources which could have been put to far better use on other more deserving matters.

Add to all this the general public distaste for ‘nanny state’ bureaucratic meddling into people’s daily lives and you have a fairly formidable argument against the whole idea.   Let us hope that the council sees the wisdom in not throwing good money after bad and keep short and few any further discussions on the subject, to arrive promptly at a sensible conclusion.

Susan Johnson-Newell 

.............................................................................

16 Oct 2009: Proposed Restrictions on Dog Walking

Following a nationwide drive, many councils, including Elmbridge, have chosen to take advantage of new powers to ban dogs from parks and open spaces. Also, in many council run areas, owners are being urged to keep their dogs on leads. These areas include, commons, heaths, recs, riverside paths, woodlands, parks and more.

This arises from The Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act of 2005. Elmbridge is one of the several councils who are, only now, considering putting these powers into practice. Fines for breaching these new laws vary from £25 to £80, but prosecution could cost £1,000. In some cases dog owners are not even aware of the restrictions.

It is plainly understood and agreed that dogs should not foul in areas of high risk, such as children's play areas. Laws for this are already in place and have been, for a long time. These new laws would appear to be simply another layer of needless legislation.

This must surely incur unnecessary costs and wasted expenses. Most common areas already have poop scoop arrangements.

In these lean times when so many are struggling with the economic crisis, it does seem inane that the council should concern themselves with such trivialities. They surely must have more pressing issues with which to deal. Indeed, one could be forgiven for wondering whether they are looking for something to do!

Dogs must be allowed the opportunity to have a good run unrestrained. As long as the dog is causing no harm to anyone else,what is the problem. All but a tiny minority of dog owners are responsible and aware. In many cases mothers with children walk the family pet. Sometimes with a buggy, which would be difficult to handle on rough terrain, or in a wilder or more remote area.

Full details can be found on the council website. Also online, are various informative press articles on the subject and a questionnaire about The Dog Control Orders. Please click here to have your say on it. (I advise that you see all the questions right to the end, as it is rather strangely worded and a little misleading.)

A group of concerned dog owners will also be meeting up to discuss this matter at the village hall, West End, on Wednesday 4 November at 7pm.  All welcome.

Let's all try and speak up for common sense!

By Susan Johnson-Newell, ERA Committee Member