# Dog Control Areas, Newark



## rickndog (Apr 5, 2008)

Just a warning for motorhomers with dogs who may camp in the Newark area of Nottinghamshire. The local council has introduced bans on exercising dogs in certain areas across the district as a reaction to irresponsible owners who don't clean up dog mess. Breach of the order can lead to an on-the-spot £75 fine. Additionally, in some other areas, dogs must be on leads.

Some of these areas do not yet have signs and I'd hate people to unwittingly fall foul of the new rules -see www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/pp/pressrelease/pressdetail.asp?id=8615

As of yet, the council don't appear to have provided details of places where it is permissable to exercise dogs so please take care in the area. These measures appear to be becoming more common around the country and neighbouring councils in the area are considering introducing similar legislation.

Most of us are responsible dog owners but sadly the actions of a minority appear to be having an adverse impact on the majority. Please, wherever you're camping, clean up after your dog and do nothing to invite the spread of these Dog Control Orders.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I regret to say that I doubt anything we could do would have the slightest effect. This kind of repressive nonsense happens when one or two councilors are anti dog, anti motorhome or whatever their particular hobby horse may be.

It is disgraceful that we can be fined even in areas where there are no signs. How is a visitor supposed to know. While I do not subscribe to the "Broken Britian" theory this kind of thing is increasing at a furious pace, it makes me angry, Alan.


----------



## goldi (Feb 4, 2009)

Afternoon all,


The bigots can,t pick on homosuals not whites and other minorities so they have now turned there prejudices to dogs.


norm


----------



## camallison (Jul 15, 2009)

£75 is cheap - it is £120 here!


----------



## lookback (Dec 4, 2005)

I have a dog and think that dog owners should act responsibly and clean up after their pet. Nothing more worse and unsightly than seeing dog faeces around especially in the middle of footpaths!!!!


Ian


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

I agree with Norm.

I am a Parish Councillor (mainly because I am nosy  ). A gentleman has just joined our ranks purely to raise mayhem over dogs. At every meeting he goes on about dog fouling and dogs out of control. He just reminds me of Alf Garnet but is repressed from spouting about anything not PC so has chosen to attack dog owner. I am not defending bad dog owner but it gets a bit wearing after a while.

It really worries me that our society is going this way. As I have said on here before we must find a way of preventing irresponsible people getting dogs in the first place.


----------



## averhamdave (May 21, 2005)

I'm from Newark and can tell you that this action is universally popular.

Dog owners have brought this on themselves. These sports grounds and playing fields are provided for exactly what their titles suggest, not dog toilets.

We have had reports in the past here of children being blinded by dog crap on our playing fields. Even if you attempt to pick it up you often (usually) don't get it all.

Should our children be exposed to what your dog leaves behind on our football pitches or playgrounds?

Licence dogs, say £100 per year - to pay for enforcement officers and dog walking areas I say.


----------



## zulurita (May 9, 2005)

I am a dog owner and AGREE dogs should not be in childrens play areas.

Any other areas where dogs are banned NOTICES SHOULD BE DISPLAYED!

How can people be fined when they do not know there is a ban in a particular area. Visitors are not going to know only locals will know.

If I was caught in an area that dogs are banned and there were no signs I would certainly contest any fine issued.

People who do not pick up after their dogs spoil it for everyone :evil:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

averhamdave said:


> I'm from Newark and can tell you that this action is universally popular. Dog owners have brought this on themselves. These sports grounds and playing fields are provided for exactly what their titles suggest, not dog toilets.


Dave, I do not want to start an argument with you, but you cannot possibly know what is universally popular unless you have asked everybody.

I assume you mean to say that you approve of it as do people of your acquaintance, which is quite different, Alan.


----------



## 96299 (Sep 15, 2005)

averhamdave said:


> I'm from Newark and can tell you that this action is universally popular.
> 
> Dog owners have brought this on themselves. These sports grounds and playing fields are provided for exactly what their titles suggest, not dog toilets.
> 
> ...


Good post Dave and I agree entirely. My local footpaths are a disgrace and are getting worse.

Steve


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I do agree that dog owners should clean up behind their pets. I quite often find myself lifting other turds if they are near the van. I do that so the people will not think our dogs did it and so that we do not walk in it, Alan.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

But what puzzles me is that few dog owners expect to be allowed to let their dogs out to roam the neighbourhood [email protected] wheresoever they choose. Yet cat owners do just that and go ballistic if anyone so much as expresses an opinion that their mobile furballs should be kept under control.

Yes lets have a £100 dog licence so long as we have a £100 cat licence as well and the owners responsible for keeping the hateful creatures under control at all times.

At least dogs usually let you see where they've been - cats being the devious lazy creatures they are often bury their waste (as even they can't stand the smell of it) in the easiest places, sand pits and newly prepared seed beds - years ago we had to get rid of a childrens sand pit because the local cat population thought it had been put their for their convenience.

Lets just have a little balance and even handed treatment here.

Hands up any cat owner who goes round their neighbour's gardens 
cleaning up after their pet?


PS Dogs don't (usually) decimate the local wildlife either.


----------



## Daedalas (Nov 12, 2009)

Good Morning Stanner and All

I am and have long been a dog owner: working dogs, gun dogs and household pets.

The old 7/6d mandatory licence for each non-working dog, checked by the village bobby he 'worked' his patch meant there were very few strays. Besides, any strays getting amongst sheep were [and still are] shot. But I have long had pet dogs and I agree most heartily dogs MUST be controlled. A licence at £100 a year is harsh for many but with say a £10 one for AOPs canine companions and free for working dogs would make very good sense and may be self funding. As of old a dog should still have a collar and a name and address of the owner and the dog should also be 'chipped': the owner who chipped it should be required to provide documentary evidence of any transfer of ownership.

I cannot say, when the licence system existed, if the RSPCA was busy but I simply do not recall there being any charities in my local area for homing unwanted dogs. I know my father swiftly put down any unwanted 'accidents' and that does seem a responsible way of doing things.

Cats are useful to keep out-house and farm mouse and rat population under control but terriers are much better in my view. Moreover, feral cats are a nightmare amongst young poultry and terribly destructive of the wild life so many country folk try hard to protect and foster. I can see no good whatsoever coming from a well fed domestic cat being free to roam and just killing by instinct the small wild mamals which are the natural prey species of predator birds we so like to see: and the fact that well fed domestic cats destroy the wild bird population is utterly unacceptable.

Surely, cats should be controlled with licences too and outside the curtilage of their owners property controlled as strictly as dogs: in my view they should be shot on sight if they are hunting wild fauna.

I now live in a village: my immediate neighbours have a plethora of cats - statistically over 2 per household. They were fouling our gardens and decimated my wife's fish. I tried all sorts of devices to keep them out no avail. Some years ago we bit the bullet and simply made clear to neighbours that having secured our property, our dogs were now free to roam our gardens and warned them our terrier will kill a cat. Cats no longer appear here. Some time ago I found very large chunks of fur from a cat's tail where I suspect one had not quite realised how fast 'small brown' is one and had had a very close call geting over the 6 ft fence: so far I have not had any bodies to dispose of.

I read somewhere there are 37 million cats in England and most are 'turned out' and uncontrollable at night! That just cannot be right!

That last phrase reminds me that my brother [an environmentalist over in Cumbria] told me of an encounter with a hill farmer he knows. It seems the wife took had taken- off with the driver of the milk tanker. He complained
"'t'missus az run off wit milkman" 
Long pause. 
"An shez tekkin check-book ... its nut right."


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I agree with everything you say except the exemption for "working" dogs - if they are that essential they can and should be licenced as well.

Any such concession would just allow the well heeled countryman to claim all his pets were working dogs and avoid a tax ordinary folk have to pay.

No concessions = no avoidance.


----------



## lookback (Dec 4, 2005)

What gives with this fixation for dog/cat licences! There are rules and regulations already in force. We just lack the manpower and conviction to effect them. The same goes for a lot misdemeanours today, speeding, using mobile phones,drinking etc I could go on and on.


Ian


----------



## roamingsue (Aug 23, 2008)

Compulsory chipping and registering of dogs does seem the way to go. Of course a £100 per anum is too expensive unless it is a one off charge.... concessions make it complicated.... Enough money should be taken to run the system and no more.

At the moment policemen find it difficult to enforce the dangerous dog act because recognizing breeds requires expertese and much time is wasted proving who owns them. (This was stated by a senior policeman on a radio 4 interview earlier this year). This would solve the problem.

Scan the animal, if chipped identify owner... unchipped destroy or rehome. If they can prove somebody has kept an unchipped dog.. prosecute with hefty fine.

If the problem dogs are removed I suspect people will be more tolerant of the remaining dogs... everybody benefits.


----------

