DCSIMG

Dog bylaws

Add to this thread by sending your comments via email to yourshout@newsiom.co.im (Dog bye-laws) or start a new one by clicking yourshout@newsiom.co.im remembering to complete the subject line with the name of the new topic.

>> Dog owners launch petition to fight ban

>> New bylaws ban dogs from open spaces

--------------

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2008 07:26: I think the point you are missing CC is that we responsible dog owners don't want dog mess in our parks and streets either. We pick it up. It is the irresponsible who leave it behind. That is what the previous laws and resulting fines/convictions where there to deter but failed to do down to a lack of enforcement. This new bye-law is anti dog plain and simple. And as to the new bye-law being available to register a complaint against, would it of made a difference? When a government panders to the knee jerk reactions of the masses, will the law abiding minority to be affected voices be heard. I'm guessing not.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2008 12:01: Why is it that for all the time that the by laws were available for inspection in the library, Town Hall, on the Corpy website and at Govt Offices not one comment against was registered??? Now that they are in place and keeping the Parks clean for people to walk in and kids to play in these poor victimised dog owners kick up as fuss. There are many more people that do not want dog crap all over the streets and parks than there are dog owners, so go along with the majority, keep the dogs out of the parks etc.

CC

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008 13:30: Have a cup of tea and a biscuit and calm down. I wonder how many dog wardens are employed by the government and how many fines/convictions where brought about under the old laws?

MILITANT DOG OWNER

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008 12:41: thank you cw - i read the comments from militant dog owner exactly as you did i felt like he would have whipped me if he could - simply because i made a simple comment

last sunday/monday i also read editors note thank you for that

since i first made a simple COMMENT - not even an opinion - i have felt very ill and sad at the abuse i have had and cant believe some people

i have often found all these forums interesting and enjoyed them

but unfortunately there are some who clearly need an outside hobby.

i wont be commenting again due to the toll it has taken on me being verbally abused - but cw its nice you rescued me.

have a nice day despite the rain

JESSIE

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008 11:07: MILITANT DOG OWNER I did not twist your words I made an argument based on what you had said If I misinterpreted what you meant re where the dog warden was then I apologise. Yes the government should do what they are elected to do but aim your anger at them and not at members of the public voicing their opinions.

CW

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008 10:43: (Editor's note) Can we please ease off on the personal attacks and ensure we stay on topic (not aimed at anyone in particular). There are some very valid points here, from several perspectives.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008 10:08: CW, I was not attacking Jessie at all. I merely asked her clarify her statements. And as to my views being extreme? Is it extreme to ask the elected government to do what it is supposed to do? You then go onto call for the same lifting of the ban which I am calling for. Talk about mixed messages. And I wonder how I stated that Jessie was accountable for the where about of the warden? "As for your further attack on JESSIE questioning where the warden was that day the INDIVIDUAL in question can hardly be held accountable for the whereabouts of the dog warden" I merely asked where the warden was located and holding to account for something which she is clearly not. It seems you are more intent on twisting my words than actually countering my statements with balanced and reasoned arguments. You bore me. Any way back to the topic at hand…lift the ban, punish those who allow their pets to leave mess and let's start seeing a stronger dog warden presence in high poop areas.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008 16:55: PEEJAY I don't see any reference in JESSIE's original message that she was anti dog, she merely stated what she saw.

MILITANT DOG OWNER to quote you "It is just a shame you wasted it on neither a non-helpful statement that furthers nor progresses the discussion."

Erm… am I the only one that thinks your extreme views could be seen as non-helpful statements and just you attacking a member of this forum for voicing their opinion as everybody is entitled to do!

As for your further attack on JESSIE questioning where the warden was that day the INDIVIDUAL in question can hardly be held accountable for the whereabouts of the dog warden perhaps you should try directing your rant at Douglas corporation they are in the phone book.

I love reading these forums its like listening to school children arguing completely missing the point of the discussion!

Anyway on to my point! I am not a dog owner but I am pro-dog! Eradicate this upcoming ban! dogs have rights they don't have vocal chords so to all the sensible members of this forum keep fighting on their behalf!!

Oh and before anybody from the anti dog side of the argument comments I am not saying that you are not sensible I am referring to the childish attacks on people raised by the minority of this forum!

CW

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008 10:10: So where was the warden when you contacted them Jessie? Sat in their office? Not likely to catch many dogs pooping there are they? Also if the dog was unattended they should have been informed, so that the dog could have been taken off the street. I do wonder why we pay these wardens to not stand in high poop volume areas to catch people or at least deter them. But then again who wants to stand out doors all day, in all weathers to do their job. Bless them. To all those congratulating the powers that be for this new knee jerk policy, it is the failure of the government and their (over) paid enforcement officers (the wardens) to enforce the laws in the first place and do you honestly think there will be sudden drop in the amount of poop you will see about? Of course there won't. There are not any dog wardens to be seen to enforce it and fine people. Stop the punishment of dog owners.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008 08:24: to you sarcastic people who left me unwarrented horrible replies to my totally innocent unbiased reply to mat saying it would not work - what he actually suggested (no rudeness or stupid replies on this from me either)LET me tell you i went t o see the warden yesteday - tuesday - and told her all this AND she told me straight there is no point in ringing the police (i cant even believe some of you suggested it to be honest)and there no point in ringing the warden THEY have to catch the dog at it.

i have been horrified from your replies and cant believe some people from what i originally sent in on sunday or monday - whichever day it was now

JESSIE

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2008 11:43: Well actually Thomas some people have these big things called Houses or Flats where we can keep many, many things such as phone books. As is the way with any type of open forum, you are entitled to your say. It is just a shame you wasted it on neither a non-helpful statement that furthers nor progresses the discussion.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 21:09: well done Jessie. Can't be bothered reporting an offence to the authorities but can be bothered to join the anti-dog brigade on an internet forum. Says everything

PEEJAY

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 18:06: haaahaha how many people keep a phone book in their car perhaps we had all better keep one in there - just in case or one in their handbag or shopping bag i must take my filofax out with me just in case

THOMAS

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 13:09: Well Jessie any rational adult would consult their phone book and find the number for the dog warden. You would also find that there is a "non emergency number" for the police. If you had done maybe the dog would have been found, the owner identified and then the law could have been applied to the owner, which may in the future make the miscreant consider picking up after his/her pet. And in the event that the dog was unlicensed or a stray then it would be taken off the streets where it would no longer present a danger to itself or others. Remember the saying "if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem".

ANON

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 12:41: you want me to ring the police on a sunday afternoon at 1.15pm to report a dog on the loose doing a doggy doo????????? (dial 999?????)im not complaining im COMMENTING this is about comments i find the (people on these sites cant handle a comment at all

JESSIE

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 11:08: Well Jessie, I don't suppose you reported the animal to the police or dog wardens? No, I'm guessing you just drive straight home to complain on a forum about it? And people wonder why the law breakers get away with it?? The police and dog wardens can't be everywhere at once, but with help from the public maybe their efforts become a lot more focussed, and then maybe the people who should not own dogs would be brought to heel (sorry for the pun) and as a result less mess would be left behind by said owners.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008 07:33: sorry matt - it wont work i was driving through willaston yesterday at 1.15pm saw a dog pooing right on the pavement didnt see the owner in sight

JESSIE

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2008 21:28: I like dogs - it's just the owners! These bye-laws didn't have to be put in place if not some dog owners missed some basic human instincts. Just today on the cemetery I saw a dog "playing" with flowers on somebody's grave, the dog owners just watching - only when I approached them they started calling their dog (which didn't listen). When I asked whether they think that is OK and whether they knew dogs are not allowed on the cemetery I was asked "who are you to tell us!" Well, I am just a citizen. And I do confront people if they do wrong. If dog owners are like that I'd suggest we have a dog-free island.

NA

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2008 21:50: Repel this law otherwise there will be no end to laws brought in to control each and everyone of us, non dog owners may think this to be a good law but what they don't see is the bigger picture which is the possibility that they may own a red car and Douglas Corporation may decide that they no longer wish to see red cars in Douglas and therefore bring in a bye law banning red cars in Douglas. The simple solution to this problem is thus, if a dog owner knowingly walks away from dog mess from it's dog without clearing it up then they shall be fined 10,000, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much dog mess around then, and any dog owner who's dog is at large, fine them the same amount. It would work equally as well with illegal parking, fine the offenders 10,000 and it would pretty much put an end to illegal parking. Most people can afford 40-200 fines, they aren't happy about it but they can afford to take the gamble and lose that much, but 10,000, there aren't many people willing to gamble that much!

MATT

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008 14:07: Reference has been made to Summerhill Glen being a prohibited area under the new dog bye-laws. Although the prominent "no dogs allowed" signage would appear to support this view, reference to the bye-laws, accessible under the Douglas Borough Council website, reveals that the public right of way through Summerhill Glen is in fact not a prohibited area. It's worth checking the aforementioned website to view the list of prohibited areas, don't just assume that a sign means what it says!

STEVE, Douglas

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008 09:46: I am just amazed at the level of….well there's no other word for it, hatred, that is shown towards dogs and their owners on this thread. Firstly I am confused as to why people are applauding this new carpet ban on dogs to combat the so called "unending wave of dog mess" that the island seems to be faced with, when a perfectly sane and logical bye-law was in place i.e. your dog leaves mess and you don't pick it up you get fined. Ah but here in lies the interesting point…how much does it cost the powers that be to employ poop patrols and how much does it cost for a ban? I think that's more likely the underlying justification for all this, not some admission that the island will sink under the weight of all this mess. Secondly as a dog lover and owner for many years, I feel that non dog owners have a group assumption that dog are wild animals, uncaring and emotionless. I pity them in this assumption. My Lhasa Apso is smaller than some cats and is more loving and friendly then you could hope for in some people. I must have some sort of poop repellent shoes (or my eyes open and looking where I am going) because I've lived on the Isle of Man for nearly 2 years now and haven't stepped in any dog mess, although I have been disgusted at the litter left behind by the little darlings belonging to some child owners. To those who complain about dogs running wild and leaving waste and mess, maybe you should look at the loud, obnoxious, litter dropping rug rats that you have spawned. Now if I was to take a photo or monitor you little Beyonce or Beckham for littering or anti –social behaviour I would be labelled a Paedo but if it's a dog you hailed as some sort of social champion for the poor down trodden dog poop smeared masses. HHmmmm maybe we should put a few of them to sleep and clear up the streets. It's a shame when governance and law enforcement gives way to the culture of carpet banning and victimisation of a section of society, who if I am right in saying pay a license fee for their pets which in theory (and we all know how theories work out) should pay for enforcement officers. Now I am not defending those that allow their animal to leave poop and don't pick it up, I detest them as much as anyone, I just the law to applied as it was stated and for the dog bashing to stop. Apologies for the long winded rant but hey it is called Have Your Shout.

MILITANT DOG OWNER

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008 13:01: 21st October MHK Brenda Cannell will put forward for debate and a vote the Douglas dog control bylaws. At 9.30am you are invited to gather outside for a protest. at the wedding cake everyone welcome dog owner or not

THE SAINT

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008 17:56: So much for canonization!!!

PAUL HARRINGTON

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2008 15:52: how much is it costing the ratepayers to keep a police officer with the bye law enforcement officer and when are the fairy lights getting switched on in derby square gardens and he's watching us but we are watching him we no where he is but he don't no where we are and does David christian think that the dog owners are stupid what was the dog bye law officer doing in marks and Spencer's (getting paid for it as well) when he should have been out patrolling the parks why don't the council step down and let the decent rate payers in the grass in derby square park was supposed to be cut but it's neither cut nor half cut cause the council workers are to busy smoking (in there vehicles) or gossipping on there mobile phones when are they cutting the dangerous trees down to give the dogs more room

THE SAINT

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 11:58: Mmmmmm- the same councillors behind the dog banning bye laws are behind this latest cemetery fiasco….. Who votes for these people?

PLi.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 20:21: Lukas- if you can keep your interest levels up for a minute or two I'll try explain to you why I'm bickering - my mum and her mate. These are two Douglas girls born and bred who have been friends for over seventy years, ever since they pitched up at the same primary school in the 1930's. Their stories are unexceptional; when they left school one worked as a short hand typist on Athol Street the other as a book keeper for a grocer on Prospect Hill. My mum lost a beloved brother to a U boat in the North Atlantic. They married within a year of each other and never worked again, raising their families and keeping a house that was a joy to grow up in. Never owed a penny, never late with a bill, never bought anything they hadn't saved for, did without most of the time. Always voted, always followed the rules never broke a law nor a regulation, never even had an overdue library book. As their husbands came up to retirement they hatched a plan and they took on a small dog apiece; 'to give your dad a bit of something to do' as my mum explained. After my mother was widowed that old dog died soon afterwards, and my mum thought it through and decided that she'd have another puppy to get her out of the house and for a bit of company. Her friend followed suit a couple of years later. Less sprightly and a bit more forgetful, but not dead yet, a highpoint of their day was to walk the dogs and they roamed all over the Island, wherever they could catch a bus to. If anyone imagines for a second that these two much loved dogs were ever off the lead (this is two old ladies we're talking about) or were ever not cleaned up after (these are two house proud old ladies to whom it would be inconceivable to leave any kind of mess for someone else to deal with)- then they are balmy. Increasingly frail in these last few years their dog walking world condensed to a couple of parks they could both get to with the aid of their sticks. (Although my mum claims she doesn't really need hers' she just doesn't want her friend to feel old). Then one day they arrive at the park and a gardener tells them that they're not allowed in because the dogs are banned. My mum can't really take it in and hopes it's a mistake but my sister goes to the Town Hall and finds out that it is indeed true. Never ones to make a fuss and always ones to follow the rules, after all its more important people than they who make the rules, they try getting up to Noble's park until my mum slips in the mud and now they're too frightened to go again. We all do our best to help out with the dog but it isn't the same because it was something she could do by herself. And it was taken away from her, having never offended a soul with the simple pleasure of walking her dog. Strangest of all these two old ladies can't bring themselves to think ill of the Councillors who brought this on them. They think they must have done something wrong. They don't have gardens so they're struggling furtively up and down the back street but the dog doesn't get it and they're out there for hours until the dog can't hold it anymore and they can wash down the mess with the bucket of disinfectant they have waiting, ashamed in case anyone sees them and reports them to the Corporation. As for me I'm bickering about this because the bye-laws are a cruel and unnecessary punishment on two women who never did anything wrong in their lives and certainly never created a problem because they owned their dogs. It is a shameful state of affairs and I can only hope that the Councillors who inflicted this on them are kicked out at the next election and people with a trace of humanity replace them.

EXPAT

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 17:01: Who came up with the bright idea to put fairy lights in Derby Square Gardens at the ratepayers expenses but the council can't afford to put lights in the dog walking area at Nobles Park. Are the dog owners not ratepayers too? Is this just happening in Derby Square or in all the parks. Are we going to get a Santa's grotto at Christmas too. Do the dog owners get the privilege of switching the lights on.

THE SAINT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 21:50: This thread has become very boring and too overdue for deletion. I've just returned from Blackpool where even a short stroll along the prom revealed many people with dogs off leads fouling the pavements, they don't seem to pick it up after their dogs either.

Douglas is by far cleaner and long may it stay that way. Whether people walk their dogs and clean up after them or move off of the Island and let their dogs foul everywhere without picking it up I don't really care. I'm not one for stupid rules and think that health and safety legislation will eventually ruin society so as long as everyone looks after their environment, pets and other people, live and let live.

I have heard a few comments in the UK in the last weekend that things can,t be helped because "That's what society is like now". Let's prove them wrong and show them the Island is not deteriorating into the mess that the UK is in. Please stop this bickering.

LUKAS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 19:23: Now hear is an idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7619179.stm

Basically a condition of licensing a dog is to provide a DNA sample from the dog. If a dogs waste is found where it should not be, it is tested, matched with the DNA database, and the owner heavily fined. That would resolve all issues about where dogs can or cannot be taken for walks, because all owners would know, beyond doubt, that if they allow their dog to foul a public place without clearing it up, they will be found and held responsible. This might seem a bit Orwellian, but the majority of responsible dog owners would not be affected, and would once again enjoy the freedom to exercise their dogs wherever they please.

AC

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 18:03: Why don't the dog owners take out a petition of doleance against Douglas Borough Council and then they can't inforce the law until it's been put up infront of the court. So all dog owners please get together and help us to do this.

THE SAINT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 09:56: Anon- you're quite right if you own a dog then the Isle of Man, or more precisely Douglas, is not the place for you. The authorities in Douglas view dogs and their owners with such hostility that they have been banned from all publicly owned spaces other than a muddy patch at the top end of the town that can be difficult to get to. Nobodies very clear about why the ban was imposed but don't believe all this propaganda about how filthy the place is or that its carpeted in dog waste or that you suffocate from the stench of urine etc- none of that is true. Many locals seem to have gone on to invent a problem to try and justify the ban after the fact but I used to visit two or three times a year, and it never occurred to me that there was a dog problem in Douglas.

Like me you'll be taking your holiday somewhere else this year. I can recommend Scotland especially the area around Fort William, fantastic scenery, wonderful walks great value and very dog friendly- we were warmly welcomed wherever we went with ours.

PLi

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 22:02: I hope your tourist office is proud of this thread. I was planning to holiday in IOM later this year but you have all made it sound quite vile and filthy. You all need your heads banging together and perhaps some new hobbies. Our park provides plenty of dog bins and bags and this works excellently. We just need to sort out the unruly parents now who let their kids drop rubbish and leave nappies in public bins. Let's have child free parks just for dogs…

ANON

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 18:34: Does any one know why there is plastic mating and traffic cones in Derby Square gardens. They would be better puting this plastic mating up at the dog area in Nobles Park to give people something to walk on.

THE SAINT

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2008 15:13: This ban is ludicrous and I am incensed that Douglas Corporation has gone to these lengths because of their own incompetence in enforcing the Dog Mess Bye-Laws. I do not own a dog, but find great pleasure in watching the antics of dogs enjoying freedom and space, much more preferable than sitting watching screaming kids wreck gardens and disturb our much needed peace and quiet. The public gardens in Douglas are paid for by Douglas rate payers to provide pleasure for ALL residents, and that MUST include the elderly and infirm, many of whom rely totally for their companionship, and mental health, on these wonderful animals. PLEASE PLEASE Douglas Corporation, think again, and instead of these draconion methods, simply employ more wardens to enforce on the spot fines for those irresponible owners who allow their dogs to foul, and clear up after them. PLEASE do not turn these lovely animals into despised creatures, who are not allowed to even carry a natural function. How would you like it!!!???!!

ANON

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 12:10: Saint- the order paper and agenda that the Tynwald addressed on April 17th 2008 did not mention the adoption of extended dog bye-laws in Douglas, and there is no mention of it in the on-line minutes of that meeting. Tynwald has not ratified these dog banning bye laws and Pitts' enforcement Gestapo can't legally throw a dog walker out of a Douglas park until it does. If you think that these primitive, punitive regressive extended bye-laws are basically a mass punishment on people who own a dog rather than a fair reflection of how well or how poorly you manage your dog, then you should write to your MHK.

EXPAT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2008 22:08: I notice Kathryn, Douglas has listed all the diseases that can be found in Dog Poo. I have no problem with that as it is well documented.

What I do have a major problem with though is if all these diseases are in Dog Poo then they MUST be in CAT POO! I am also sick and tired of finding piles of cat c**p in my garden or on my front lawn. I do not own a cat. So all the cats in the neighbourhood must be using my garden as the local cat c**p house. But, apart from a few people on this thread who have brought this subject up and been ridiculed for it - I can only assume we are supposed to accept cat c**p all over the place but not dog - nothing is ever mentioned. It is just as offensive and just as dangerous. At least we can police dogs! Unlike CATS.

A GARDNER WHO IS SICK AND TIRED OF CATS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2008 14:28: My Cavalier King Charles spaniel "Charlie" would like to pass a motion opposing this new legislation.

PHIL T

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2008 21:25: Bravo and well done for a common sense piece of legislation for once! Maybe the dirty dog fowlers are a minority and the responsible owners do get unfairly looked upon, although it's about time this issues was tackled head on. I fully support any legislation that creates a healthier public environment for the majority (Dog owners or not) and allows me to check my shoes a little less before entering my own home. Just one thought, there must be a huge amount of owners in this "minority" that's spoken about, when you consider how many back ally ways within Douglas alone stink to high heaven of dog mess..!

B KELLY

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2008 19:17: Having read the range of comments of this site with interest, it appears that some people are getting distracted from the real issue and making personal attacks on others for having an opinion on this. These personal comments are detracting from what this forum is trying to achieve, as people are less likely to take note of the comments made, if they are made in this way. I am a dog owner and think that these extended bye-laws are very ill conceived. I don't think the issue is having dogs in public places, the issue is more that the minority of dog owners think it is ok for them to leave their dogs mess where deposited. I don't think there are many people who would object to seeing dogs in public places as long as they were under control and their owners cleaned up after them. Whenever I take my dog for a walk, I take a good supply of bags to clean up after her. With the best will in the world, we cannot dictate the exact place our dog may need the toilet but what we can do, is make sure that we are prepared, so that we can clean up after them. I dislike seeing dog mess left about as much as anyone else and have nothing but contempt for those people who don't clean up. The trouble with these bye-laws, therefore, is that the people who previously thought they were above cleaning up after their dog, will still think the same way and will probably flout these new laws just as they did the others. I agree with other comments made, that a better option would have been to more greatly enforce the issue of those who don't clean up. I also think dog owners are being perhaps unfairly targeted with these bye-laws. Where is the bye-law controlling where cats are allowed to foul? I for one, am getting increasingly annoyed with my garden being used as a toilet for the neighbourhoods cats but this seems to be deemed ok. I'm sure, however, that if I took my dog to the toilet in one of these cat owners gardens, this wouldn't be ok. So please, councillors, rethink these extended bye-laws and instead come up with a way of addressing what the actual problem is. If this issue had been addressed properly, there wouldn't be any reason for anybody to feel unjustly treated.

SR

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2008 14:27: This issue along with many others may be as a result of councillors getting elected unopposed. The only way to change the current situation is to ensure that the council elected is made up individuals that both represent the views and are accountable to the people they serve. For democracy to work for everyone then politicians must listen to the electorate to be in a position to serve the electorate, there is little incentive for this to happen where the politician / councillor is elected unopposed. One of the consequences of this situation is that easy options are taken to tackle problems are often seen as the way forward. The individuals who make these decisions know they will have very little to answer for at the next election, when they are aware that the probability is high that they will be re-elected unopposed. Currently the only level of accountability is at election time and this opportunity is being thrown away. Wake up Douglas and the Isle of Man let's ensure the politicians who are elected to serve the electorate are indeed doing so, otherwise we are giving them the temptation / opportunity to serve their own self interest. At the next election I would hope that in every ward that the current crop of councillors are given a run for their money and forced to make clear to the electorate through their manifesto why they are standing for election, what they will do for the electorate and also allow them to be questioned on what contribution they have made whilst elected. My view is that a petition is has less power than making it clear to the elected councillors that they face a serious contest at the next election So instead of moaning get organised and make all politicians / councillors sit up and think that come the next election they will not have the easy ride they have in the past. I for one will be making my stand come the next election to Tynwald. In my view it is clear that the decision is not the correct one. A simple for and against chart shows that simply by ensuring the

enforcement of the existing bylaw on the minority of dog owners would

have benefited all the people of Douglas. The fact remains that new act

will not remove dog mess from the pavements and could increase the

incidence at least there was a doggy bins at hand to dispose of the mess

around the now banned areas, the new act also has the effect of

alienating dog owners in Douglas by inferring they cannot be trusted to

behave responsibly.

STEVEN

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2008 23:16: Following the message threads on this subject anyone can see the people will never all agree on how best to tackle the problem of dog poo. Banning dogs from the parks it is repeated by many people will help overcome the problem of children being affected by 'diseases'. I just wonder what exactly is the extent of peoples knowledge or ignorance on the subject of these dangerous diseases that it is claimed will strike down our children; Firstly there is the common perception that children can be blinded by contact with dog faeces here are the facts;

TOXOCARIASIS

Toxocariasis is a disease caused by the roundworm Toxocaria Canis which is found in dog faeces. In most cases the worm will not cause any symptoms in dogs, however if humans are infected the parasite can cause Ocular larva migrans, an eye disease which can result in blindness. The other form of this disease is Visceral larva migrans which causes swelling of the organs and nervous system. Symptoms can include coughing, asthma and pneumonia. Not very pleasant and of course as responsible parents we want to do all we can to protect our children from anything that can harm them. Also responsible dog owners will regularly treat their pets for woms which would indicate that the number of dogs carrying this disease would be very low. But what most responsible dog owners do by cleaning up after their animal is to

protect their beloved pets from a deadly virus which can kill their dog;

PARVOVIRUS

This virus can remain infectious in ground soiled with dog faeces for up to 5 months. If the faeces are stepped in the virus can be transmitted to your dog through houses, cars and gardens via your shoes. Parvovirus can be fatal. The symptoms in dogs can include foul-smelling, bloody diarrhoea, loss of appetite, vomiting, fever, lethargy followed by dehydration, shock and death if not successfully treated. BUT I would like to know what leglislation is going to be put in place to protect our children from the even deadlier diseases carried in Cat faeces and pigeon droppings such as;

Toxoplasmosis

Toxoplasmosis is a microscopic parasite that can effect all mammals, including man, as well as birds, amphibians and other reptiles. The cat is the definitive host.

People whose disease defence is weakened by illness, chemotherapy and cancer.Pregnant women, especially in the first, two thirds of pregnancy where disease can be passed to the unborn child causing blindness, epilepsy and brain damage. Mild cases of Toxoplasmosis show as 'flu-like' symptoms with swollen glands, temperature rise and general ill health lasting up to a couple of weeks. Pigeons also carry diseases that are harmful to man. Significantly more than the brown rat and yet we wouldn't think of feeding the rat. The best known disease passed from birds to man is Psittacosis but over 40 more diseases can be

passed from the pigeon to humans.

PSITTACOSIS

Human can become infected with Chlamydia psittaci by breathing in the

organism when the urine, respiratory secretion, or dried feces of infected birds is aerosolized (i.e., dispersed in the air as very fine droplets or dust particles). Other sources of exposure include a bite from an infected bird, and handling the plumage and tissues of infected birds. When a person breathes in Chlamydia psittaci bacteria, the lungs' defense mechanisms attempt to neutralize them. The bacteria that avoid this defense start an infection that varies in severity from a mild flu-like illness to severe pneumonia. Generally, the signs and symptoms appear within four to 15 days after exposure. These include:

fever, chills, cough, weakness or fatigue, muscle and chest pain, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, sweating, abnormal intolerance to light. Psittacosis is primarily a lung disease but it can involve several organs. Some reports show that inflammation of the liver, lining of the heart cavity, the heart muscle, and the brain can occur. The course of the disease is variable and it can result in death. However, fatal cases are rare. In mild cases, fever may continue for three weeks or more. So Pigeons can kill our children, Cat faeces can harm unborn children, but Dogs are the ones highlighted as putting Children at risk!!!! This somehow seems very much out of touch with reality. I live in Derby Square and witness regularly cats wandering freely through the parks and gardens, using shrub beds and bushes as their toilet - just the places small kids like to play hide and seek. I have never once seen a cat owner come and clean up after their animals. Yes the dogs have been banned - which I think is a great pity as the minority who had no consideration or respect for themselves or fellow pet owners have just moved their disregard into the streets and back lanes. Douglas corporation - shame on you for being so short-sighted and ignorant with your boastful claims that the reason you are imposing these laws is to protect the health and safety of Children. From my observations of the day-to- day activities in Derby Square I miss the dog walkers, and it seems to be unruly kids and teens who are the most destructive force at work in the park. I feel almost intimidated at times to go into my local park - the dog walkers always

made the place feel well used and safe. Now it seems the park is becoming a drinking den and teenage hangout. I agree that it is very sad not to see the elderly people who as part of their daily

routine always took their pets for exercise in the park. This not only gave steady routines to these vulnerable members of our community, but also was a wonderful way for them to keep an active social life. Shame on those of you who want to inflict this sort of isolation onto the elderly citizens who have always abided by the laws. I would like to think that we all have more compassion and understanding towards these, our most vulnerable members of society. Come on Douglas can't there be a compromise that will keep most of us happy. Either that or I would like the added investment of more and more wardens to impose fines on those who allow their cats to toilet in our parks, the drinking

community who regularly hold social events in the parks, and get our streets and back lanes patrolled and cleaned regularly. COMPROMISE - why not??

KATHRYN, Douglas

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2008 23:11: I am thrilled with the news of the recent dog bylaws. I am sick and tired of having to clean my childrens shoes, clothes and bike tyres of dog mess. Of course every dog owner thinks their dog is the best, the cutest, not smelly and that everyone must love them. Well i along with my husband cannot stand having dogs jumping up at us. The Douglas Corperation spend hours working on the flower beds and plants in the parks, however i dont know a sole that will even enter a park anymore as you are guaranteed to come out worse off, i.e pooh on your shoe. It will be great to see kids and their families enjoying the parks again. I dont see why dog owners are finding the bylaws so difficult to comprehend? Surely now being limited to certain areas you will meet more people. Those of you moaning that you have to go further to get to the designated dog walking area, surely if you are uneasy on your feet you shouldn't have a dog in the first place? Oh and as for Jeremy Clarksons land, the only people that were actually bothered about being banned were people with dogs. Well, you should have seen the amount of dog pooh down there. It was disgusting. Good on ya Clarkson.

SM

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2008 22:46: Sorry - realised that Ballcottier School is in Braddan - but I can't find anything about dog prohibitions on the Commissioners website - just the dog warden's number and that's only office hours....

JW

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2008 14:27: Sorry for being a cynic but I actually think the new laws will make the problem worse! It is not going to change the mentality of the small handful of people who do not clean up after there dogs. It's just going to move the problem elsewhere. And responsible dog owners are now going to be persecuted wherever they go, even if they or their pet have not done anything wrong. I would like to know who is going to police any complaints that come in with regards to fouling to make sure they are actually genuine and not made maliciously because the complaintive doesn't like dogs.

DOG LOVER

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2008 07:46: Its been a long time coming it's a pity it does'nt extend to upper douglas, I for one am fed up of coming out of my home to find dog mess over the path and we have a dog bin opposite our house. This reaction from the council has been brought about by the irresponsible behaviour of a few dog owners who think that they do not have to clean up after themselves.

B.D.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2008 23:45: Does anyone know why Ballacottier School isn't included on the 'Dogs Prohibited' list?

JON & NICOLA WHITING

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2008 16:56: Right, www.douglas.gov.im... Give us a clue! I've been looking for 20 minutes and can't find a damn thing about it! Are they not clueing us in so they can fine more people or something? More idiocy from a bunch of incompetent fools!

STEVE

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2008 15:27: Hooray and about time too. I'm sick and tired of dog mess everywhere.

CLIVE NEEDHAM

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2008 14:01: I do not live in Douglas but these Bye-Laws are ridiculous. Many people have dogs which need to be exercised. Instead of going after all dog owners, put the effort onto prosecuting those whose dogs are not under control or who do not clean up after fouling. Most owners are responsible and if the few who are not were fined 500 or so, the message would soon get across.

DON

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 02, 2008 11:06: 'The grass is to be cut very soon, there are no plans for lighting, dogs are not allowed in Nobles park under the bylaws regardless of bike racing. the by-laws come under the The Dogs Act 1990. The draft bylaws were available at the Town Hall, Henry Bloom Noble Library, Douglas Police Stations and on line at Douglas Corporation from August 2007. Approved by Department of Local Government and the Envioment 17 March 2008 laid before the April sitting of Tynwald 2008.' this is a copy of an email sent to me from stephen pitts

THE SAINT

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2008 20:44: These extended Douglas dog control bye-laws can't come into effect until they are ratified by Tynwald, which, so far, they haven't been……….

EXPAT

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2008 17:28: I live in Derby Square, unfortunately I do not have a dog but I have enjoyed many hours watching the antics of the dogs that used to be taken to the Square for their daily exercise. During my frequent walks in the Garden I very seldom saw any sign that dog owners had been negligent in clearing up after their pets. It is true that some dog owners are not responsible, like a young woman with a child in a pushchair who let her large, disobedient, wolf like dog the freedom to frighten people with its menacing behaviour. On the whole dogs were very well behaved and very friendly. I saw with regret and sadness that the dogs have been banned from Derby Square. Today an old couple who bring their Westie to the gardens each day, stopped their little car, let the little dog out and walked to the entrance. They read the notice and with sad faces walked back to their car, the little dog did not want to get in, it could not understand why its daily fun in the park was not happening, the owner picked it up and went away. I wonder if the self righteous who banned the dogs stopped to think about the old folk who walk their beloved pet to the park, if they have no car, Nobles is too far for some of them. Their little dog is probably all they have for companionship having lost their life time human companion. Surely it should have been possible to compromise and allow people to exercise their dogs there if they are on a lead? This present ban is unnecessary and cruel. Dogs on leads do not damage the gardens as some unsupervised children do by climbing trees, stamping on flower beds and breaking off branches for their games, if any damage has been done to the gardens it was not by dogs but by humans. I sincerely hope that the authorities will reconsider and allow dogs on leads in Derby Square.

VALERIE COMPSTON

TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2008 23:39: For one reason or another, I have shied clear of this topic but feel I cannot ignore it anymore. I have a dog that refuses to use anywhere other than my backgarden for her toilet duties. Now thanks to the mass hysteria, I cannot walk her in public places for fear of being lynched by the "nothing better to do than stick their collective noses in" Group. Why not take this a stage further and ban the horses off the promenade as they use the road for their toilet. Ban humans off the pavements and walkways because some of them are spitting chewing gum all over the walkways and pavements and lets get rid of all the cars because some of them are leaking oil onto the road. We can then start on aeroplanes as they dump effluence into the seas oh and the boats as they pollute the seas. Have I covered everything. Good

PEEJAY

MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2008 23:09: So, whats the answer? put collars on the kids, and nappies on the dogs? or better still, employ plain clothed dog wardens, and impose very heavy fines.

P J HARRINGTON

MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2008 16:20: I own a dog but do not live in Douglas nor do I use the parks or beaches in Douglas to exercise my dog. But everytime I read this thread I feel like I am being personally held to account for the

irresponsible dog owners who do! Please stop tarring every dog owners with the same brush! But I also agree that something needs doing. But I have to ask what about all the other 'items' that get left behind. For example - on a recent walk along our local beach we yet again came across a well used (YUCK) nappy that had just been dumped and believe me they are just as offensive and vile and smelly as dog poo. Parents please take your dirty nappies home with you and not dump them on Kirk Michael Beach!!!! After all, I am one of the many responsible dog owners who does clean up after my dog. How about cleaning up after your kids! Maybe we need to set up patrols to police all the islands beaches and inforce keeping them clean of ALL rubbish - including dog poo and nappies and all the other cr*p that seems to be left behind by

irresponsible beach users. We have some lovely beaches. We should look after them.

LYNN

SUNDAY, AUGUST 24, 2008 19:13: About time too! This has gone on for far too long ,where irresponsible dog owners just let their animals foul wherever they like. It's about time the beaches on the Island were better policed/regulated as well especially during the Summer months.

TONY, Douglas

SUNDAY, AUGUST 24, 2008 16:43: Well Andrea, Ian, Arthur et al that's great- no one seems to be clear on how much usage the parks are getting from people who need to be protected from the, as yet unspecified dog menace, but, to reuse an old line on this thread its only 'hurrah for the corpie' if they enforce the bye-laws. They didn't enforce the old ones, which were quite clear about dog owners needing to clear up after their pets on Douglas Head, and on the beach and in the parks, and which would have prevented the problems you have all experienced, and there's not much evidence that, after their first purges, they'll enforce the new extended bye-laws. These are the ones that ban dogs as opposed for requiring them to be controlled. That amounts to a collective punishment on all dog owners, even the many that are entirely responsible in they way they view their enjoyment of their pet and their responsibilities to society at large. In effect the extended banning bye-laws are no different to banning all teenagers form all the parks because some teenagers might cause damage, or banning all adults from the parks because some adults might play football, or banning everyone from the parks because some people use them for drinking or taking drugs. It's a well established principle in Manx law that society doesn't issue block punishments, that you seek to identify and punish those who cause the nuisance or the offence, not everyone who might potentially cause an offence. Unless you're a Douglas dog owner of course, in which case you are punished in advance by being banned from the public open spaces you help to pay for and maintain, however well you and your pet have behaved because the corpie have decided that you might cause a nuisance. Des is making an important point here- it isn't good enough to treat all the members of any community as being all bad, when only some are. That's the first step on a road which leads to a very dark place. It truly is the mark of a dictatorship. Andrea, SOME dog owners can truly claim that it isn't them mainly because it isn't, and they didn't see this coming because the good old corpie never went out to public consultation on the change to the old dog control bye laws- they're pointing their fingers in the same direction as you, they want the miscreants punished so they can allow you to continue to enjoy the parks without worrying about dog mess, although it would be interesting to know which park(s) are in such a state that you've been driven to support a collective punishment that you'd reject if it included you. Ian, no part of a family fun day includes dodging dog muck but you asked who the responsible dog owners are. You're one aren't you? You walk your dog and clear up after it don't you? Do you deserve to be placed in the same sub class of Douglas residents? Nor do many, many others. Arthur- well done for wanting to engage with local democracy. Get that petition going! Just make sure you think it through first- it needs to say 'we the undersigned hate dogs and congratulate the corpie on making life miserable for everyone who owns one, regardless of whether they are guilty of poor ownership or not'. It isn't a fair or reasonable position to take but you're entitled to your view. It is a sad state of affairs that this issue is blighted by so much naked prejudice. Mind you, the one thing I haven't read yet on this thread is a dog owner demanding to walk their dog anywhere they want, on or off the lead and for it to be freely allowed to foul anywhere and not to have to clean it up…….not many of them about are there?

PLi.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 24, 2008 10:20: Making sound law is one thing. Enforcing it is another. It was an offence under the former bye-laws to allow a dog to foul and perhaps we should be asking why the Corporation didn't try to enforce the old law before bringing in the new one. And although I empathise with IAN's comments there is every chance that the fouling was caused by dogs whilst ON a lead. Irresponsible dog owners will always allow their dogs to foul. The answer should always be more enforcement rather than draconian legislation which will affect the elderly and infirm the most.

GEOFF, Douglas

SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2008 10:37: The messages following my own correspondence earlier this week indicates that although I was endeavouring to look at the bigger picture concerning laws that should prosecute the perpetrator rather than the innocent. It appears that when I mentioned that we will become as blinkered as our leaders, it looks like I am too late, and this is already the norm. Whatever the outcome of punitive laws, this battle may be lost, but the ultimate loser is society itself. Good luck. Best regards

DES

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 2008 17:20: Well said Ian! Well said Andrea! We should all write to the corpie congratulating them on some sound law making. Perhaps there should be a petition………..

ARTHUR

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 12:21: After much thought about this topic, and being a dog owner myself, I was very much against the corpie until last weekend.... My family and I attended the 'fun day' on Douglas head, where there was at least 5 instances of dog muck, right next to the paths, (and more in the middle of the grass) - much of it had been trodden in by children, as it was only feet away from the circus act. I had to pick up a young girl off the ground to stop her dress from dragging through it. Now there is a lot of talk about responsible dog owners on this thread, who are they?, do any of them walk their dogs on Douglas Head?, can any of them explain to me why 'dodge the muck' was part of the fun day? If people can not be responsible than perhaps these by-laws are a good thing!

IAN

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2008 17:26: After reading the message from Sue (responsible dog owner) it occurred to me that those of us who fully agree with the new laws should also write to the Town Hall to make our views known, and to congratulate them on a sensible move. Too long have we had the menace of dog muck in our public places whilst dog owners (ALL of whom claim 'its not me, its someone else') are too busy pointing their fingers at each other to clean up after their pets, you had your chance guys, don't tell me you didn't see this coming. Hurrah for Douglas Corporation!

ANDREA

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2008 14:52: Just as a matter of interest who, apart from dog owners walking their pets, ever uses the parks in Douglas anyway? I've just returned from a few days on the Island. The beach was busy(ish) as was Douglas head and Noble's park, as in there was a few people about at each of those places, so maybe the Corporation can conjure up some kind of an argument from banning dogs there. The only park I saw anyone using was Hutchinson Square where a few kids were knocking a football about (right under the 'No Ball Games' sign). Granted the weather wasn't great so perhaps that's why there was barely a soul in the parks but the question did occur to me- who is it that needs to be protected from dogs in those Douglas public parks?

EXPAT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008 12:47: Right on Des! You're absolutely right - although being made to feel like some sort of anti-social subspecies of humanity, because I want to take my dog for a walk in places where people have walked their dogs for years, is what has finally turned me into somebody who writes angry letters to those who have the power to govern our way of life, there are many more instances of the erosion of our individual rights and freedoms. One of the more ridiculous which springs to mind is not being allowed to sit on the wall on Douglas Promenade – Health & Safety gone mad! I hope you've written to Douglas Borough Council setting out your views on the Dog Byelaws. They appear to be quite capable of ignoring public opinion unless it is presented to them directly!

SUE

MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2008 21:14: It is with regret and pending gloom that we are witnessing an on-going deterioration of our liberty and freedom in what is a so-called democracy. Over the last few years, bureaucrats in the western world have taken it upon themselves to create a clinically correct and sterile world. Although their intentions are well-meaning, they are also short-sighted, and they all take the easiest options when it comes to policing and crime. Whilst the criminal element enjoy a range of freedom and privileges that are supported by the state under the guise of the European court of human rights, who then by default actively encourage the criminal fraternity. The law-abiding citizens are repressed by society, and their individual rights and freedoms are diminished to that of third rate citizen. The purge that continues against dog owners, property owners, motorists and the ordinary man in the street, is causing quiet discontent and growing dissent. There is now less respect and trust in our 'democratic' governments who are quick to criticise other regimes throughout the world, in many cases are better off without western interference. All said, brings us to the point of banding Douglas Dog owners into a compound sited adjacent to Nobles Park. Now we know a little how the unfortunates of the last word war felt by being segregated from the rest of the public. First, I agree that irresponsible dog-owners who allow their pets to foul public spaces should receive on the spot fines, as it is unacceptable that anyone should be subjected to park areas fouled by dogs. It is in the interest of local councils to employ wardens with the right to impose fines, and this would ensure that the perpetrator recognises that they are at fault, and financial penalties would remind them of their responsibilities. To penalise all dog owners is a drastic measure, as if it is seen that dog ownership is not a popular pursuit, the knock-on effect will ensure more abandoned animals, a less caring society, a clinical, antiseptic world that is robotic and void of any reality. We will all eventually become as blinkered and moronic as our leaders (with the exception of the criminal element). Our forefathers fought world wars against oppression. We owe it to them to preserve our freedom and liberty. Yours sincerely

DES BROOKES

FRIDAY, AUGUST 08, 2008 13:35: I wrote to Douglas Borough Council recently on this topic, basically asking that the matter be reconsidered by the Committee responsible for passing the Byelaw and suggesting the possibility of compromise. For anyone who's interested a copy of the letter is the last item posted on the previous thread relating to this subject at http://www.iomtoday.co.im/your-shout/Dog-byelaws.4053261.jp . Yesterday I received a letter signed on behalf of the Town Clerk advising me as follows:-

"….only a very small number of complaints have been received about the provisions within the Dog Control Byelaws 2008; on this basis, it has been decided that the matter will not be taken back to committee, at this time." So we know what to do don't we? As well as signing the petition each and every one of us should write individually to the Town Hall asking for our collective and individual grievances to be redressed.

SUE (One of many responsible dog owners)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 05, 2008 09:28: The petition is growing in strength but it is just a matter of time before it affects the whole island. Even if you live outside of Douglas please participate in the petition. Make an informed choice and create a healthier environment for everyone. Support responsible dog walkers by signing the petition. For all the facts visit www.iomdogs.info tell all your friends, colleagues and family.

ANNABELL, Responsible dog owner

FRIDAY, JULY 04, 2008 14:47: Text of letter sent to Douglas Borough Council's Enforcement Officer and copied to Town Clerk:

You are no doubt aware of the recent press coverage concerning the above subject and, hopefully, of the many comments posted on the relevant 'Your Shout' thread on the iomtoday website (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/your-shout/Dog-byelaws.4053261.jp).

Many of the views expressed are extreme, some are unintelligible, a few are quite reasonable. I'm sure you are only too familiar with all aspects of the argument, I'm also aware that you do not make the byelaws and that it is your role merely to attempt to enforce them once they have been passed. I am writing to you in the hope that you will bring this letter to the attention of the particular Committee responsible for passing the Dog Byelaws.

I have lived in Douglas since I came to the Island in 1983, my husband was born on the South Quay and his family has lived in Douglas for generations. We have lived in Woodbourne Square since 1990 and my two daughters grew up in the area. Apart from a break of around two years between losing one dog to old age and subsequently getting a pup which is now two years old, we have always had a dog. We have treated Woodbourne Square as our garden, my children have played there, my dogs have been exercised there (and in many other places both in and outside Douglas), we have paid our rates, we have been responsible pet owners, as such we have been angered by owners who allow dog fouling in our parks and back lanes. I have to say that if I choose not to venture into the Square these days it has more to do with drink and drugs than dogs, but that's another story.

Some years ago Queen's Gardens became a children's playground and dogs were banned. I am very happy not to walk my dog in Queen's Gardens as long as I can walk him elsewhere in the area in which I reside. I don't want to be forced to take him to the designated dog walking area in Noble's park every time I want to take him out for 10 minutes. Even if I wanted to, as I work full time, don't drive and am not the most agile specimen of middle aged womanhood, it just wouldn't be practical.

It seems to me that there must be a case for compromise here; surely it's unfair that all dogs and their owners should be prevented from using any of the areas specified in the long list set out in the Byelaws. Can we not have the freedom to use at least some of Douglas's many public spaces during specified hours, leaving other areas totally dog free, thus allowing an element of choice? It cannot be socially acceptable that any one group of residents, which includes young and elderly, able-bodied and infirm (not to mention old dogs which can't manage much more than a slow five minute stroll), should be discriminated against in this way.

The undeniable truth of this matter is that banning dogs will not prevent irresponsible owners from failing to clean up after their pets. It is this problem that Douglas Borough Council and its Enforcement Officers should be concentrating on (rather than reducing the responsible owner of a three legged dog to tears – the incident which has given rise to the recent press coverage). A few highly publicised prosecutions resulting in hefty fines might go a long way towards discouraging such anti-social behaviour.

I appreciate that it may not be easy for your officers to be in the right place at the right time; however once the novelty wore off a similar problem would arise in the enforcement of the intended ban. I also appreciate that there always have and always will be individuals who do not comply with the laws that govern our society. Persecuting those who are willing to comply with what is reasonable is not the answer.

SUE

FRIDAY, JULY 04, 2008 10:11: Geoff and Jessica- at last someone gets it!! This dog problem is an enforcement problem not a dog problem which means to say that if the old dog control bye-laws had ever been enforced the new dog control bye-laws wouldn't have been thought necessary other than by the most extreme dog-phobics because there would have been no mess or uncontrolled dogs. Its Douglas Borough Council members we need to be talking to because we are all singing from the same hymn sheet here, dog lovers and dog haters alike we're all completely opposed to delinquent dog owners and want to see them punished for making all our lives a misery. And, once the Councillors are controlling to situation properly we can find out whether we can all share our public open spaces and parks. Try this webpage to contact the people can solve the problem once and for all………………..

http://www.douglas.gov.im/councillors.asp?action=byname

…………. But let's not get our hopes up.

PLi.

THURSDAY, JUNE 03, 2008 11:01: ,thank you geoff for a nice sensible letter - no name calling just the basics common sense

So where are these enforcement officers in case i need one Do they walk round town like traffic wardens , perhaps they drive round looking for dogs, perhaps they might even sit with feet on a desk drinking coffee waiting for a phone call is there a phone number you can ring if you see Fido going about his business in the street this is fido the dog folks not the human before anyone gets there back up - then we can ring them on our mobile tell them where we have seen the crime committed and follow the dog and owner home ( secretly of course) and then put in a bill for secret surveillence Crime solved. So please folks dont leave home without your mobile oh and a camera would be helpful too lets get this big problem sorted out once and for all

JESSICA

THURSDAY, JULY 03, 2008 09:14: I have followed this thread with interest and consider myself to be a hybrid. I own a dog AND hate the site of dog droppings where ever they may be. I do accept that the new bye-laws may prevent unruly dogs not on a leash upsetting other people. But the thread seems to be mostly about the mess dogs leave behind and I fail to see what possible difference the new bye-laws will make to this problem. Dog owners were obliged to clear up after their dogs under the old bye-laws yet some didn't. Do the members of Douglas Corporation think that simply by having their dogs on a leash will make their owners change their unreasonable habits and use doggy bags? Somehow I don't think so. We ratepayers pay a lot of money in salaries to Enforcement Officers so perhaps we might see them earning some of it by prosecuting the minority of dog owners who caused the problem in the first place.

GEOFF, Douglas

WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 2008 09:58: Annemarie - wind your own neck in dear. I was quoting a story from our very own examiner -

it was headed dog owners are asked not to let there dogs run wild near nesting birds That was the story - i was quoting it - did you not read it (it didnt name individual persons either so get of your high horse or dog)not once did it say cat owners..........I did not write the story - i only READ it and quoted it again you are one of the very dog owners who think you can do no wrong it is becoming very apparent on here that dog owners are a breed of their ownall i say to you is woof woof - Read stories in the examiner carefully

ALONSO

WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 2008 03:07: In response to Alonso, my dogs dont care about birds in fact not once have i ever witnessed either one of my dogs bother to chase a bird. My cats on the other hand are a different story so what you gonna do suggest Cats are banned altogether? Have you any idea what you are talking about? Cats are a bigger threat to birds than dogs ever will be so wind your neck in. 3 times in the last month have i had to take an injured bird to the MSPCA from the main road where i live in Crosby and everytime its because they have been hit by a car! Not attacked by a dog! I cant even believe i wasted my time reading your idiotic post!

ANNEMARIE

TUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 19:19: In response to John boy. So what is your point exactly? I am not bitter I am saddened- that's my "opinion". If you actually read my thread you would see that I do not wish the streets to be fouled either, and I understand fully that not everyone likes dogs. I have taught my dog to come back to me when people approach out of respect for others and it wasn't easy I can tell you! I'm sure many other dog owners do the same. As I mentioned previously most people smile and pet him anyway. I do strongly believe in letting animals enjoy free excercise as I believe it is their natural instinct, to deprive them of this would seem cruel. Dogs have been mans faithful companians for as long as we all know. I too find the thread interesting but stand by my "opinion" that the world is becoming too "sterile". All I would like to see is a return to live and let live, with more thought for our fellow humans if we all looked out for each other no-one would have to lose out.

LD

TUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 18:06: Annoyed - what I actually said if you read properly was fun walks (ie running whilst under pack leaders control is fine) as long as your dog was properly exercised on a leash daily as well please re read my post and you will see so dont go slagging of my opinions when you quite clearly are not reading correctly and the book in question is written by an extremely successful dog trainer sorry people trainer. Exercising your dogs this way has many benefits as your dog will not have excess energy to burn off and is then more likely not to cause trouble. particular example my dog who was working on a leash was savaged by a jack russell who quite clearly had too much pent up energy that was just this sat so dont expect me to be happy with dogs running free anymore my dog walks free of a leash in control and runs when I say so he does not run round all over the place which is what most people have a gripe about. What I did say is all those people who allow puppies 18mnth and younger to run free of a leash could potentially be causing harm that could effect them in later life so by all means allow them to run free but I hope you feel guilty and get lots of vets bills when they are older you make their decisions and I feel that that would be a very bad one (maybe made with the best intentions) Put into human terms my son loves chocolate but am I going to let him eat it all the time NO WAY same thing as far as I am concerned the pupps welfare has to come first as just because we enjoy something does that mean it is good for us????

Have you read the book as I have read several and this is by far the best I too spent lots on training my dog weekly trips to puppy class etc and I never got my dog to heel properly till I adapted the pack leader position as this book teaches now in the space of ten mins putting my newly learnt techniques into place my dog walks great and it only took 10 mins so do not judge me until you have all the facts and just so you know my dogs get the best and are extremely loved and I stay at the home with them all day so do not think you are better than me 7mnth old lab puppy and you work full time thats a good life for a dog locked up in a house all day no wonder you feel the need to please your dogs (I really feel sorry for them). All day on a leash I said 45 mins so please learn to read and be a bit more open minded why dont we lock you up in a house all day with no toilet and see how you feel we can all make stupid comments cant we.

VICKY

TUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 10:20: Pamela (and everyone else who complains about uncontrolled dogs and dog fouling) click on this link: http://www.douglas.gov.im/shownews.asp?ID=2734

Scroll down the page to 'dog control bye-laws 2007' and read it for yourself. Dogs are not allowed to be off the lead anywhere in Douglas in any publicly owned space including Douglas head. You witnessed someone committing an offence and you should complain to the Corporation who are not enforcing their existing bye-laws. I did not say dogs don't predate nesting birds I said they were unlikely to create as big a threat as the bird's natural predators especially cats and rats. You'll note that I recognise that the IoM government rightly excludes dogs from sensitive areas. You'll also note that I'm not complaining about that. My point about Derby Square is that a couple of contributors to this thread have complained that it is heavily dog fouled. That would seem to be a good place for the Corporation to start enforcing its existing bye-laws.

The argument here is about whether dogs should be banned or controlled in Douglas.

PLi

TUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 09:54: In response to LD on june 27th You say you are flabbergasted by certain bitter , twisted individuals Reading through all this, all i can see is people with opinions - which is what the threads are all about i have noticed if there are any bitter twisted individuals it happens to be the dog owners who just cant accept the fact that their sallys or jimbos or whatever they want to call them are not actually allowed to run riot where the owners want t hem to run. please remember this is all about opinions of each individual - if we all thought the same there would be no opinions - would there and i happen to find all the forums very interesting - each to their own i say but saying bitter, twisted individuals really speaks volumes for yourself LD your obviously a dog owner who likes doggy to run whereever, whenever

JOHN BOY

TUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 09:15: This is so interesting - those who have dogs cant see further than their noses - those who dont are quite clear about what they expect in life - a nice walk along pavements without stepping in dog muck and without fear of being rushed at. Seems we have already been warned not to go to derby square (thanks for the warning) PLi - the story in examiner was this -

Dog owners are being asked to keep their dogs under close control near nesting birds. Presumably they have forgotten to add a very important bit of information for you being "this does not include domestic dogs because PLi say domestic dogs dont do this" Also you say that dogs are not allowed to be off leads on douglas head The other evening early on about 7pm i watched a nice couple lay out a romantic picnic with a glass of wine poured out and picnic food laid out . then suddenly 2 dogs watched by the owner ran up to them. The young woman had to then stand up with her wine and shoove the dogs away END OF ROMANTIC PICNIC - i imagine. I felt sorry for the couple. So is it true no dogs on douglas head without leads and who is going to make sure of this

PAMELA

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008 21:07: Well at least Alonso knows what he wants and he's honest about it (at least up until the bit about there being dog mess everywhere which is an obvious exaggeration)- he wants dogs banned. I'm not clear why, domestic dogs are very unlikely to predate ground nesting birds certainly in comparison to the birds many natural predators, and, of course, domestic cats.

Dave hasn't quite gotten hold of the issue. So far as I know Wendy isn't trying to get the dog bye-laws scrapped she's trying to get the newly extended dog bye-laws scrapped. There have been perfectly proper dog control bye-laws in place in Douglas for many years and they were last updated in 1990 and they made it clear that owners must clean up after their animals, there were no allowable excuses (such as I didn't see it, or I don't have anything to pick it up with etc) and further, people must not have their dogs off the lead in a public place, such as any park in Douglas, or the beach or on Douglas head, and finally must not have their dogs at all in a children's play area or on any school grounds, or risk a fine of up to 1000. In addition, the Isle of Man requires dogs to be licensed, wormed twice a year, and excludes them from many sensitive areas in the countryside. As a devoted dog owner that all seems fair enough to me, as I'm sure it does to Ms Hulme. I don't want to see dog mess on the ground any more than I want to be approached by any one else's uncontrolled dog and I don't see why anybody should have to put up with our dog doing the same.

The problem is the newly extended dog bye-laws that came into effect in May 2008. These put a blanket absolute ban on dogs in any publicly owned space in Douglas other than a single designated area on Noble's Park. Now that throws up a whole series of problems for dog owners which Ms Hulme is quite right to challenge. It isn't an offense to own a dog so long as you look after it properly; dog owners pay the same rates as anyone else so it isn't fair to exclude them from parks if they were prepared to follow the rules, older people who value the companionship of their dogs may not physically be able to get to Noble's park, it's pretty clear that there wasn't any consultation on the Corporation's part because no one knew the ban was coming in until officials started throwing people out of the parks, so dog owners never got a chance to address whatever problem the Corporation thought it had, you have visitors still to the Island who might bring their dogs with them and not have anywhere to exercise them; I could go on but you get the point, dog owners at least have a case to make in their defence.

Mrs Ridgeway and one or two others have made the point that Derby Square is heavily soiled. Fair enough, there must be some delinquent dog owners creating a horrible problem for that community. Get the Corporation to do something about it. I can find no trace of anyone ever being convicted under the old dog control bye-laws although you do have bye-laws enforcement officers, as well as the police. All you need is a 'proper officer' ie any Corporation employee or policeman to witness this happening and report the idiot who let it happen. How hard is that? Two or three numpties fined 1000 and splashed all over the Examiner would end the problem, and still allow decent dog owners to share public spaces safely and harmoniously with non dog owners.

The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of people who keep dogs look after them very well and don't cause a problem, of the one's who don't most would up their game if they understood the problems they create, of the very small minority that couldn't care less, punish them hard. What you have now is a mass punishment concocted by a lazy Corporation that didn't do its job properly in the first place. Most likely it won't in the future either. Result, the dog owners all the anti dog brigade never even noticed before have their lives made much more difficult and the dog owners who give the anti dog brigade their ammunition will continue to stick two fingers up at all of us.

PLi

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008 17:18: HI All, I also have read the pro's and con's in this veritable list of hate and counter hate between both sides, which according to Wendy, are all going for exactly the same thing. Unfortunately Wendy you couldn't be further from the mark. All over the world people get punished for what the minority do or say. What your well meaning petition is actually doing is giving the power back to the very people this by-law is there to prevent, the unreasonable dog owner who does NOT pick up the mess of their dog. So you want this by-law to be stopped, and yet you do not come up with a reasonable solution to the problem. So what is going to happen to all the dog dirt left? Are you and your responsible dog owners going to pick it up? I doubt it. But then again if the by-law comes in is it really going to change anything, or just move the dog mess to another part of Douglas? This I can see happening. But what it will do is stop any area where Children play getting covered in mess, and you have to agree that can only be good. Maybe the solution is to provide more areas where dog owners can exercise their animals. Maybe this is a better thing to petition for rather than the removal of the by-law, which you have to admit is there for the protection of the young people who play and have fun in the very areas they are designated for. Maybe this is just a little food for thought…….

DAVE

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008 16:46: Dear Annoyed so WHERE exactly do you allow your dogs to run free for 20 mins each day???? Lets hope it isnt where birds are nesting So not only do we have irresponsible dog owners allowing there dear pets to poop everywhere we now see they also allow them to chase birds and frighten them off the nests hence baby birds dying Ban dogs i say...........

ALONSO

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008 11:52: Well done Wendy. A good positive move.

PH

MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008 10:57: In response to Vicky's post i have never heard such a load of complete rubbish! I walk both of my dogs on a leash twice a day and then let them run free for 20 minutes to enjoy their freedom and why shouldn't they, they enjoy it and should be given the right to do things they enjoy. It has nothing to do with laziness i enjoy to watch both my dogs have a run in a safe environment and they enjoy it too and i would never deprive them of that enjoyment. I would like to add i clean their mess and they are no threat to anyone and i like to feel that my hard work training them and the money i have spent taking them to puppy class has achieved this. Just because one persons opinion in a book says not to let them run free does not mean a dog shouldn't. How would you like someone to stick a lead on you for the day??? I have a 7 month old Labrador and have bought numerous books and read numerous websites about caring for him correctly and all have conflicting opinions. I do for my dogs w!!hat i can see them enjoy. They both enjoy the mental stimulation of playtime with me and walking on the leash and they then enjoy their time having a run off their leash. Maybe you should go and buy a couple more books!! I dont need to be told by you or any book what both my dogs enjoy i know what my dogs enjoy from spending every spare second i have training them, excercising them and mentally stimulating them as well as having a full time job and running a household so yeah you have offended me.

ANNOYED

SUNDAY, JUNE 29, 2008 18:22: I have read all the comments on this page and agree with most of them. I think the thing I have concluded is pro and anti dog people are all on the same side here! As a responsible dog owner who cleans up after Bella its infuriates me to see dog mess left behind by irresponsible dog owners. I would even go as far to say it infuriates me more than it infuriates parents who's children are stepping it. My reason for saying that statement is simply because myself and other responsible dog owners are being punished for something we already do. If we clean up after our dog what gives an irresponsible dog owner the right to think its ok not too? We all want the local parks and gardens to be a clean safe environment for ALL people to enjoy. The irresponsible dog owners are the ones who should be punished not anyone else! This is the reason I and many others with me are taking a stand against the Douglas Corporation to try and get them to do their job and enforce the fines they already have in place before they passed this discriminating Bye Law. Nothing would please me more to see these irresponsible dog owners severely fined for not taking their responsibilities seriously and allowing this situation to evolve where ALL dog owners are tarred with the same brush because of their irresponsible behaviour. Therefore I have drawn up a petition and invite people who disagree with this bye law to sign it. The minority who do not clean up after their dog should be punished and not the majority who do! The petition is available to sign in the following places

Milan Vets, Arg Beigyn Vets in Onchan, A1 Taxis, The Buttery Cafe, The Pet Stop on Duke Street, Diane Mobile Dog Grooming Services, Hot Gossip Hairdressers on Church Street, Before and After Hairdressers on Christian Road, Balloons To Go on Strand Street, Robinsons, The Rosemount Pub, Karvers, News Plus & Lloyds Chemist on Prospect Terrace, On Windsor Road 5* Security, The Post Office, The Electrical Shop, On Bucks Road The Florist, Barking Mad Pet Shop, The Health Food Stores, The Aquarium, Wylows, The Copy Shop and Laxey Dog Club.

Please accept my apologies if I have missed anywhere off and please feel free to contact me on 211155 or by email bellahulme@manx.net if you would like information on the Dog Bye Law, if you would like a copy of the petition for yourself to ask people to sign or if you have a business you would be willing to ask your customers to sign.

Last but not least I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contacted me to offer their support, handing out petitions to local businesses and their suggestions for helping the green areas of Douglas be accessible to responsible dog owners! Best regards

WENDY HULME

SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2008 21:02: The fun police strikes again , what happened to free speech and just old fashioned freedom , these bods who support the first guy or woman who start such things are just jobs worth's , you can see it now them all sitting around in there little groups all agreeing with each other , get a life or maybe get a dog and get a life (-:.

PETE

SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2008 19:10: For the many confused human beings out there dogs dont have emotions do you think a pack of wolves wakes up in the morning and says to themselves I am feeling a bit down today I think I'll go back to bed. Again do dog psychology research if you truly care about your dogs mental wellbeing. Dogs love to work thats its built into their DNA that is why I say walk your dog on a lease control make them focus on you trust me try before you dismiss it your dog WILL thank you for it. I did not say it was lazy to allow your dog to run free but I am sorry if what I say offends anyone if you do this daily in place of walking on a leash then you are not giving you dog what he needs you need to do this as well average exercise about 45 mins walked on a leash then later in the day take them for a fun walk if you dont have time you shouldnt have a dog. Just one more note young dogs shouldnt be allowed to run free anyhow one they are usually in training and therefore a liabililty and you could also harm your dogs joints and ligaments ever wondered why you cant train for agility till your dog is 18mnths old. Cesers way 7.99 in waterstones bookstore buy it read it and give your dog the life it deserves. Lets face it as much as we all want to debate this do are dogs really care NO they are dogs they live for the here and now at the end of the day its the humans making issues both the ones doing the banning and the ones not cleaning up in the first place.

VICKY

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 19:41: Having read through this thread, it is such a shame that many contributors have to resort to petty name calling and personal attacks whilst voicing their opinions. Granted, it is a very emotive subject but surely, as adults, we can all have a civilised discussion? There is a lot of dog mess in public places which, as is usually the case, is the result of a minority of dog owners. My own toddler takes on the mantle of being 'dog mess watcher' when we go on walks which is does rather spoil a lovely family outing and should never be allowed to happen. (She is also rather astute at pointing out rabbit, sheep and horse mess – bless her!). I would also like to be able to use public footpaths, pavements, bridleways etc without having to watch my ever footstep. How disappointing and downright dangerous that some owners will not clean up after their dogs in children's playgrounds (Port Erin for example). In fact, why are the dogs in there in the first place? I certainly do not want to ban dogs, they are lovely animals, but unless the minority of owners take the responsibility of owning their dogs more seriously, the majority are going to be affected adversely. This seems to be the way of life.

EJ

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 15:52: I do not believe it is acceptable for humans to defecate on the public footpath or in communal public areas so why is it ok for a dog? Dog owners please clean up your dogs mess. A friend of mine was over for TT and he commented that the Island appeared to be a "toilet for dogs". He was quite surprised at the amount of dog mess on pavements and that dogs were running free on Laxey beach.

SH

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 15:48: The responsible dog owners are a minority group, but even these can be divided into groups, the ones that take it home or dispose of it in the appropriate bins, and those who hang the bags of muck on trees and bushes. The majority leaveit where the dog has deposited it, no matter where it is. This dog filth is everywhere; the dogs cannot be blaimed for this, so the owners must be clocked, and fined heavily. And as for the chap, Bill, who claims he is so perfect, does his perfection give him the right to leave his dogs muck on the pavement? HURRRUMF.

PAUL

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 12:01: We live in Derby Square; it is absolutely disgusting dog mess everywhere, take a walk up Green Lane or any of the back alleys surrounding and you will find dog mess, and the smell to go with it. Go on the beach dog mess and dogs messing also not on leads if you say they shouldn't be on the beach you get abused by the dog's owner. I choose not to have a dog because I live in a resident area I would suggest that other dog owners consider this option and keep the place clean.

MRS RIDGEWAY

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 10:52: I think this thread is hillarious, people want to ban dogs because their is a small minority of people who dont clean up? I have a labradour, and I take him out every day and it is very rare that I see any mess at all while I am walking, yes you do come across the odd mess now and then, but again that is due to the irresponsilbe few....And that means the rest of us have to be punished? Here is a thought, why dont we make all the dogs wear giant nappies so that none of them will ruin the countryside......It is ridiculous, why dont we crack down on those that are littering? why dont we ban everyone from going in green areas? Same case as dogs. You would feel hard done to if you couldnt go somewhere beacuse of what a minotiry have done. You cant expect owners to keep their dogs on a lead at all times, they wont get as much exercise and they like to run around while they are young. I admit, when my dog was young, he liked to go running off, what do you expect? He is young and exicted about being free and having fun before being in a house till the next day? If you want them to be on their lead at all times and stay within 1 metre of you and dont mess and dont have emotions, why not have a robot?.... I do agree that the people who are not responsible should be punished, but not by runing everyone's enjoyment.

MATT

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 20085 10:44: It's not the dogs it's the owners. Sadly many of them do not clean up after their animals. My walk to work is spent watching out for and avoiding dog mess. Sadly my children aren't so vigilant and why should they have to be in public parks and places. Think also of the health hazard this animal mess creates. As usual the silent majority will suffer whilst a few loud dog owners moan like mad.

CLIVE

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 09:43: I have followed this thread for a while and am absolutely flabbergasted at some of the bitter, twisted individuals on this page! I believed us to be a nation of animal lovers! How wrong can one be?

I apologise for the sheer length of this piece but I feel another view point would be valid.

I have been a dog lover all my life and have never had the opportunity to own one due to home circumstances – finally a year or so ago I was able to get a puppy. I have one child – no siblings unfortunately – and he was thrilled with the prospect of having a little play mate, of course the pup was taken out, on a lead, for his own safety – of all the people we have met along the way only about 10% have ignored us – the rest seem drawn to him and wanted to give him a fuss. They walk on with a smile on their faces. So far so good....

Now, coming to the matter of mess – yes I do clean it up and no it's not a pleasant job, it is however, a responsibility. I have never come across any other dog walker who doesn't whip out a bag and clean up after theirs. Of course we all know that there are plenty of people who have no respect for our towns or other people but why should the rest of us miss be judged alongside them?

I believe It is cruel to have a pet and not allow it to free run, so we go to places like the closed off section of Marine Drive, Millennium Oakwood or the old railway line. All of these are fine as we have time to drive there and still have a good walk. Calling that lazy is just crazy – we all have a certain amount of free time and for us to walk there would mean having to return before the dog had had a chance to run off the lead! (remember a lot of us dog owners still have young children who we responsibly try get to bed at a reasonable hour!)

I only found out about the bye-law by chance as I happened to get chatting to Wendy the collie owner in Woodbourne Square park.

I was going to tell her tale on here but couldn't get the e-mail across. So well done to her for being brave enough to stand up for what she believes in.

Since having our dog none of my family have caught any known diseases from him – though we have caught some nasty bugs from our fellow human beings – these I believe are coming from further afield and our tendency to travel more, though strangely our pets stay put.....I think that rules them out as major new disease bringers.

I would suggest that other mothers do what I had to when my child was young and watch where they go and guide them away from poking around in dirty places. Oh and teach them to look where they're going too! Children will always need proper supervision until they get old enough to understand the ways of the world – can't say I ever witnessed mine with his hands in dog mess because he was always at my side – like it or not - when we were out on the street.

Meanwhile, yes I fully approve of the fine for not clearing up after your dog – maybe if the wardens got off their butts and monitored the streets instead of hiding in bushes embarrassing the genuine dog lovers it would deter the offenders.

Finally, my husband and I pay our rates, license our dog and keep him inoculated and clean. All he really asks for is food and water, a bit of affection and some free exercise. Our family has a right to enjoy the public spaces too. Please feel free to comment as it appears you probably will – I am proud to own a dog.

I am sick to death of hearing ban this ban that... the human race has survived for millions of years – if some individuals can't cope with average daily life maybe they should try relocating to somewhere away from people in general.

This piece is not meant to offend but I do feel strongly that our world is becoming unbalanced.

LD

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008 07:40: Gill So what your trying to say that its only those that claim benefits that allow their dogs to poop in public and walk away get real those comments are horrible. I for one do claim benefits as it is the only way I can stay at home and look after my children until they start school as my only other option was to continue working to pay someone else to do my job and look after my kids and by the time you pay for that theres not much left for the family anyway. I for one am very grateful to the IOM govt for the social security benefits that I claim as it gives my children the very best care that of their mother not a child minder or a nursery. My husband also works in excess of 45 hours a week (he couldnt work any harder). So you know I DO CLEAN UP AFTER MY DOG EVERY TIME. I am a responsible dog owner and I do claim benefits so please dont start doing exactly what douglas corp have done a tarred all dog owners with the same brush you are saying that dogs owners on benefits are the culprits and that absolute garbage!!!! I would bet money on the fact that is a small selection of people from all walks of life single mums to rich people with fancy cars even scruffy people and smartly dressed people. I will point out again dog parks etc should be a reward for dogs not their sole source of exercise dogs need walks on a leash that is how dogs learn respect and discipline so therefore all people have to do is open their front door and go (no driving required) douglas corp have not said get in your cars and drive to the next available dog park so it is those lazy dog owners that are bad for the enviroment. Read cesars way or other dog phsycology books daily walks are an essential part in keeping your dog balanced (an unbalanced dog is an unhappy dog) dog parks and running off leash is like the cherry on top extra exercise) so for those that do drive to parks get off your lazy back side and buy a leash and use it your dog will be happier.

VICKY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008 22:52: Yet another kick in the teeth to the responsible majority dog owners. Ban this ban that. The yobs vandalise and litter the parks – people spit and swear in public, they have no respect for authority and no fear of prison and especially the new four star Hotel in Jurby with restricted access. They will not pay fines and if they do they probably pay with social security hand outs that the responsible pay for in their taxes. Sort these people with laws that hit them hard. If some poor dog is owned by these people and they allow them to mess make them go out for a week and clean up dogs mess put their picture in the paper and make them wear a day glow vest with poop scupper on the back. If they refuse re-home their dog who will probably be very happy, and put offenders in the stocks in the middle of Douglas. I'd pay for a ticket and a rotten tomato. Oh no we can't do that says the politicians because of the Human rights act. With Human Rights comes Human responsibility. Douglas council should remember we are responsible dog owners, pay rates – we vote and there is a lot of us. I suggest next time there is a lot of us. I suggest next time there is an electron in St.Georges Ward a responsible dog's owner candidate should stand against Stephen Pitts. And as far as Douglas Council green credentials how do they think it will help global warming forcing people to get in their cars and travel to nobles park dog area and out to the country to walk their dogs and that's if they are lucky enough to have a car. To conclude - Douglas Council need to crack down on the irresponsible hard and leave the vast majority of responsible dog owners to enjoy their pets, its called common sense.

GILL

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008 22:50: I'm male. I'm white. I own a dog. I drive a 4x4. And guess what I earn my living selling balloons. I must be public enemy number one ! But consider this :- I am a responsible dog owner. I have a clean driving licence. My company contributes to the economy. We pay Tax – Vat and employ people. I have never been in trouble with the police. I have never been un-employed. I have never drawn social security. We brought our kids up to respect authority. Am I the sort of person the Isle of Man wants? I am starting to consider my options.

PAUL

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008 11:20: Instead of a blanket ban on dogs in the park did the powers that be consider any compromise as a way forward? It seems judging by the comments I have read, everyone ultimately wants the same thing, a pleasant park which everyone can enjoy, whether they have dogs or not. Surely there could be scope for the dogs to have access to the parks at a given time during the day and if the times were staggered amongst the parks you could have a warden present at the appropriate times.

JAN

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2008 13:20: Fed up - you have hit the nail on the head. Dog Owners are an easy target. I, like you also clean up after my dog. Always have done and always will. And I don't like being accused of not. Most dog owners are responsible so don't tar every one with the same brush!!!!! Where we live there isn't much dog mess because most people clear up after thier pets. But there is another problem. The mess left by some house owners and their kids. I have actually seen dirty nappies dumped in carrier bags left on the play area near our home!!!! Rubbish everywhere! Cans! Plastic bottles! Carrier bags! Goal posts dumped in the way of everyone else who uses the area. I could go on and on. It looks an absolute tip.

H BLADE

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2008 12:57: Mandy … the comment about the balloons, bottles, cans etc was merely to try and make the point to JJCL that there are responsible and irresponsible people in society, as well as dog owners, and that as they expected dog owners to pick up after other people, I was now expecting them to pick up after or challenge someone who was being an irresponsible person/parent, you are quite right that the balloons is another matter all together, perhaps it wasn't the best comparison. With regards to the Bylaws … have they banned the teenagers from all of the public parks, because a small minority leave rubbish/vomit/broken bottles … NO .. why ?? because that would be unfair !! In answer to your question about how much dog mess I come across… not that much if you compare it to some of the over things I have mentioned, but I will add piles of vomit to the list, ( the week days I would say that the dog mess out ways the over things, but is evened out over the weekend… see Kathryn's post) I just find that 1 dog mess seems to expand to LOADS of dog mess by anyone anti dog, as Vicky has found on Peel Prom.

The bylaws that were in place were good… and if they had been strictly enforced there would have been no need to amend them to ban dogs from public places. I am all for name and shame the culprits. My dog may go to the toilet 2-3 times a day …. Irresponsible dog owner… repeat offender… 2-3 messes on the streets/in the park a day, they can't be that hard to find as these people will probably walk the same route/use the same park every day.

Vicky …. Nice to find another "Cesar" fan ( I am trying to say Calm/Assertive but finding it difficult after reading some of these posts !!!)

FED UP OF BEING THE EASY TARGET, Onchan

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2008 10:29: Mandy: you can read the Dog Control bye laws here:

http://www.douglas.gov.im/shownews.asp?ID=2734

JJCL you seem to be taking the anti dog moral high ground to a whole new level of priggish, sanctimonious and ignorant bullying. Who put you in a position where you could castigate owners who clear up after their dogs for not clearing up after other dogs??? Owning a dog doesn't turn people into some kind of second class citizen that the likes of you can demand cleaning duties of when it isn't their dog that's the problem. Clean it up yourself: you're every bit as responsible as an innocent dog owner. Better still, turn your bile onto the Corporation- they set up the bye laws, they changed them to make them even more Draconian and ensure that dog owners don't have the same freedoms as non dog owners- so make the Corporation enforce the law. You won't get an argument from the decent dog owners you feel you're so superior to.

EXPAT

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2008 09:56: i do feel sorry for the responsible dog owners - i really do - BUT if you read their letters they are left tidying up after other dog owners and INDIRECTLY - they are admitting there is a problem - Fed up, of onchan, says i have NOT picked up ALL the dog mess i have come across THAT to me admits there is a big problem, as vicky been left tidying others mess up in peel (i think)

how much dog mess have you come across Fed up - of onchan.

And this forum is about dog laws, not who and who does not release ballons - start another forum - you are correct of course about the ballons but please.......this is about dog bye-laws

What exactly are the new dog laws - and where can i find them - just out of interest really

MANDY

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 13:22: JJCL ……. I have read your comments directed at Vicky, and I would just like to say … I am a dog owner, I always pick up after my dog, I have also picked up after other peoples dogs, ok I admit I have not picked up all of the dog mess that I have come across, but have picked up in areas where I considered that dogs may be banned if it continued, and the majority of areas where I go dogs are still allowed thankfully!! I have handed other dog walkers bags to clean up after themselves, for the same reasons. I also pick up ( and a number of my dog walking friends do the same) broken bottles, cans, burger containers, pizza boxes, and the most alarming deflated balloons from the beach. I once collected 2 carrier bags full from Kirk Michael beach while out on a walk with my dog, which had been released by a company in Ireland …the balloons kill more wildlife than dog poo!!! So as you see there are responsible and irresponsible dog walkers, and there are also responsible and irresponsible members of society, but the dog walkers are an easy target… The bylaw inspectors should be enforcing the rules that were already in place regarding dog fouling, litter, drinking in parks etc, and the next time you see a child let go of a balloon, please make sure that you give them a real good dirty look, and ask the parents to retrieve it, or retrieve it yourself…

FED UP OF BEING THE EASY TARGET, Onchan

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 12:50: I always carry enough bags to take care of others mess and yes I did dispose of this careless dog owners mess however I cannot clean up all mess all dog owners should be responsible. I might also add that in my daughters pushchair I carry a whole packet of stink bags and especially on the school run if I come across any muck I do take care of it. but what I am trying to get at is that there are lots of dogs that walk along peel prom throughout the day and there was only 1 (yes ok thats 1 more than there should be) but thats not bad statistics and lots of you are having a go at responsible dog owners like me because of a minority please hate dogs if you must but please dont be biase we are not all irresponsible I am confident that it is only a small number of dog owners. I dont agree with what douglas corporation are doing as for some they need the convenience (sorry lazy) option because unless you are disabled owning a dog then you should be fit and able to walk the streets like I do. Dogs love being both on and off lead it gives them a purpose when walking on a lead as they have to be disciplined and follow their owner faithfully which is fulfilling for most dogs as dogs are meant to follow not lead and it also good bonding and training your dog plodding faithfully by your side waiting for your commands not running around loose like a loon with no control what so ever with owners screaming commands and the dog hearing blah blah blah boundaries rules and limitations is what dogs are programmed for without these they arent balanced animals and that is just wrong.

Know that is all I have to say on the matter.

VICKY

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 12:20: I have read many of the messages on this forum, and it seems to me that while some folks seem to be reasonable and try to find an amicable solution others seem so tunnel visioned that it makes me question their own insecurities and shortcomings. NOBODY IS PERFECT

I don't own a dog, never had and don't plan to; but personally as a Douglas resident I can't see why the decent honest folks who pay their dog licence fees, their rates and clean up mess can't be met half way by the Corporation.

No it's not pleasant to have to look out for dog poo wherever you go and I'm sure this is as much a bugbear for responsible dog owners as it is for the rest of us, but I question how any new legislation is going to improve the situation when currently legislation is in place to curtail all the forms of unwanted dog- related issues.

Why take such extreme measures without trying any alternatives?

I recently visited Prague and was astonished at how commonplace it was to see people everywhere with dogs - but yet no mess. I noticed that dog bins and even dog poo bag dispensers were dotted around the streets and parks, and was told that there were on-the spot fines imposed for anyone seen not cleaning up. This system clearly works.

Why spend tens of thousands on a giant seagull when other more important issues need to be addressed. Fund some new jobs and hire wardens to patrol our streets and parks - like traffic wardens; issue immediate fines. As for any dogs who are 'at large' - isn't that why there is a dog warden?

Dog mess is unsightly and a real nuisance but so too are bird droppings, and things we humans. It's not hugely unusual to see vomit on the pavements after a Saturday night and one big thing I hate is when someone spits a big boagie loaded mess on the pavement - or grass in the parks.

Signs are in place on all the parks I have visited that drinking is prohibited, but I see folks with cans and bottles on a regular basis, teenagers 'playing' with florescent lightbulbs in one of the local glens left smashed glass all over the floor. Kids who drop litter on the floor behind them. . . . . . Do we ban all adults, teens and kids from public places - NO because it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush. I don't appreciate my ears being offended by folks swearing but we have freedom of speech don't we - for now anyway.

Live and let live.

I ask you - if the majority of people weren't cleaning up their dog waste in the parks - how come the dog bins are always well filled??

Douglas Corporation take a more pro-active approach on this one, what's next lock the parks up and chuck away the keys that way nobody will be offended.

All that will happen now with the new law is the problem will be more evident on the streets. Those poos are the work of repeat offenders, not random one- off events so nail the disrespectful dishonest delinquent dog owners and give our honest citizens a fair go!

KATHRYN, Douglas

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 08:50: VICKY..............it is still ONE too many dog poo - whether it is one dog poo or 60 dog poos..you lot are NOT getting the message.......there isnt supposed to be ANY dog poos thats what we non dog owners are getting at

by the way - did you clean up the dog poo that was left there by one of your fellow dog walkers - or just leave it there???

just wondering......

JJCL

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 07:42: FYI for all of you trying to make out that the IOM is basically covered in dog poo I have just got back from my walk with MY DOG and out of the whole of the peel prom and surrounding quayside I only came across the huge total of 1 yes 1 small doggy poop and the amount of people who would like to think otherwise please stick with the facts also I notice that someone earlier commented that they harassed in several locations well they listed peel beach now this is rubbish as peel beach have enforcement officers who remove dogs and owners from the beach (this is fact as I have witnessed this) as they aren't allowed on between 2100 and 0900. and also under the dangerous dogs act any dog loose and jumping at people can be order to be put to sleep. Also dogs only behave that way if you have weak energy (FACT) so perhaps certain people should practice a bit more calm assertive energy and then dogs would just pass them by. AND FOR THOSE IGNORANT DOG OWNERS FOR GODS SAKE PICK UP YOU DOGS BUSINESS YOU ARE GIVING THE MAJORITY OF US A BAD NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VICKY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 22:17: If all dog owners were responsible (and sadly this is not the case), there would be no need for the orders made by local councills to keep dogs off their various public sites. I see numerous dog owners blatantly turning a blind eye to their dogs fouling & I don't feel that approaching these people would improve the problem. Inconsiderate dog owners have had their own way for far too long. When was the last time any owner was fined for letting their animal foul a public place?

DICKO

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 19:42: As a responsible owner of 2 dogs and living in Crosby i dread the day they do the same in this area. I actually called the town hall on behalf of a friend ejected from a park in Douglas and was put through to a female Bye Laws officer only to be spoken to with the most disgusting attitude i have ever heard from someone who deals with the public if this is what they are being paid for then i suggest they up their wages from 11 quid an hour to attract a better class of person!! I have read and agree with many views on this issue even the ones from some of the non dog owners however we all pay for our dog licenses and for what??? All dog owners pay rates towards the parks etc and for what??? Do the right thing and section an area off in the parks for responsible dog owners to use. Wendy you have my full support and my mum who is also a dog owner living in the vacinity of Woodbourne Square will be writing a letter to the Town Hall!!

LEE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 17:26: Hey Guys its simple, create a byelaw which can be enforced. Catch a human letting their canine do what's natural but not cleaning it up. Then enforce said byelaw and on evidence fine the lazy and inconsiderate dog owner a month's salary – like 2,000, put their face on the front of the newspaper and take their dog off them. This is a revolutionary new concept in the justice system; we catch and punish the guilty and the law abiding are left to go about their day without the totalitarian regime interfering in our ordinary little lives.

DISGRUNTLED OF DOUGLAS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 17:02: Douglas Corporation (Town Council) seem to very very anti-dogs. Last year they attempted to ban dogs all year around from Douglas beach (which they did not follow though) but did bann them in Summerhill Glen. Personally I was extremely disappointed when they were banned from Summerhill Glen as it used to be a safe place for me to take the whole family (including the dog) for a walk. Now I have a difficult moral choice to make. Do I a) walk past the signs saying no dogs with the dog and tell my children "Don't worry somebody really really stupid made the decision to bann dogs so I'm ignoring them" - thus teaching them to disrespect authority" or do I b) go somewhere else - (Molly Quirk's Glen, or Groudle Glen in Onchan where the Commissioners aren't quite so Draconian or The Millennium Oakwood. So far I have chosen the latter. Additionally there used to be regular traffic of dog walkers through Summerhill Glen making it feel busy, these days the only people who walk through it are cutting through to the footbabll club on Blackberry lane, I don't go through it any more as it feels unsafe. Perhaps this byelwaw is being passed to protect seagulls from dog menacing, after all if tens of thousands of pounds are being spent on a giant statue of a seagull they must like them! Personally I think a lot of the problem is because Counceillors are only accountable to their customers at election time - I want to see who will stand and be counted with a pro-dog policy. The rest of the year they do not bother to find out what their customer's want - a simple usage survey of the beach and glen would have told them who was using it - believe me on a rainy day the only people using douglas beach or Summerhill Glen are dog walkers. Good luck to Wendy Hulme but she would be better giving out an individual's name and address for the Council - being flooded with personal letters always work better than a petition. Finally we do seem to be at least a decade behind other tourist destinations in the UK. In Wales where I am originally from I stopped the local council banning dogs on our beach 20 years ago by getting people to write letters in addition to my initial petition - when they received 50+ letters they had to take notice. They now welcome them (and their owners who clean up) as they relise that a lot of their tourists who choose to holiday in the UK will bring their dogs too (which is why they haven't chosen to go abroad for their holiday in the first place).

ANNE-MARIE RIVERS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 15:42: Deutsche Demokratische Republik, DDR or Douglas Draconian Rules: There are always two sides to a story, reading all these emails one see so many of the problems that fueled the DDR: neighbor spying on neighbors Parents passing on to their offspring's their own fears and inadequacy rather than making their children stronger.

And all this is fueled by the nanny state who continue to deliver a police state controlled by petty officials

Live and let live let dog owners walk their dogs but penalize those that are not responsible, if we are not careful our children yes those we strife to protect will not grow up known the freedom that their great grandfather / grandmothers fought to protect.

Lets kick the ball of with saying good morning, if you are upset by a dog actions don't shout but introduce yourself and explain to the owner the problem quietly, discussion rather than confrontation.

Dog owners stop the we are right fight be part of the community clean up and maybe go a step further while walking your dog pick up any litter and help to keep the area clean, you will find that a lot of the don't let dogs walk in our park protesters don't go that extra mile to keep it clean.

GEOFF

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 15:29: The point is that the new dog bye-laws will make not one jot of difference. The old bye laws required dogs in a public space to be on leads and have their waste cleaned up and disposed of. Every single anti dog post on this thread goes over and over the same ground in more or less the same overblown terms; loose dangerous dogs and dog waste left uncollected. (Although Moddey has added a bizarre new twist in the form of dogs rampaging around car parks he is trying to shop in….) If the authorities had enacted the old bye laws those twin problems wouldn't exist and you could all share your public open spaces that you all, dog owners or not, pay for. The owners who didn't give a stuff about the old bye laws aren't going to pay attention to the extended ones are they? They're going to carry on letting their dogs transform the Isle of Man into the dog hell so many posters here describe in such over blown terms. I don't live there so I can't know how true the assertions are, but I grew up on the Island and visit often and I don't recognise the terrible conditions so many anti dog posters describe.

The slack lazy enforcement that didn't take place in the past isn't going to suddenly happen now is it? The dog owners who will try and abide by the new bye laws are the ones who always obeyed the old ones. They'll do their best to find somewhere they can exercise their pets, or have to get rid of them, or have them put down, if they can't. All you dog haters over there now need to turn your attention to the Corporation authorities- they are going to make a lot of decent responsible people's lives a misery so make sure they enforce the rules they created; just don't hold your breath whilst you wait.

PLI.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 15:19: Claire , calm down, calm down - no one was talking about you personally - now go get a cup of tea and a biscuit and join this forum again.

you are the exception - if you do all you say you do (be honest YOU know that)

BUT i have to tell you that during the fair in TT week about 7pm at night amongst all the busy people was this huge doggy doos right on the prom - and i said to my partner god grief look at that......(yes made us feel ill) (that dog needed a vet, quick)

the people walking in front of us too - the lady said to her partner - look at that will you.....

So, someone, somewhere had let big doggy (definitely wasnt a little doggy) do whoopsy doos all over busy promenade, fair ground side - SURELY someone had seen this happen......

So who is the guilty party.......Not me cus i dont have a dog. (wasnt Claire either, we know that)

cus if it was busy it cant have gone unnoticed - so noone brave enough to speak up and Say in loud voice

WHAT you think your doing mate.......Giving all those innocent doggy owners a bad name !!!!!

JES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 15:12: Oh my god I cannot believe how small minded some people can be for those who say the perfect dog owner does not exist then come to peel when I walk my dog I always clean up every time never leave home without bags never let my dog of his lead and never let him approach children despite the fact that I have 3 kids who adore my dogs and my dogs adore them. Dogs are wonderful intelligent creatures who can be loyal and loving. Ok so they arent everyones cup of tea but so what that is human right no one makes people who hate dogs go to areas where dogs re go the the beach instead as dogs arent allowed on the beach during the day in peel. Also there are parks for children that dogs are not permitted to go into so take your kids there and leave us dog owners alone to enjoy our faithful companions.

VICKY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 14:57: I am a dog owner, i don't finish work till 11:45 at night, i am supposed to walk from where i live to nobles park which takes about 30 minutes and 30 minutes back, which means I'm not getting back home till 1'o clock. There is a perfectly good park 2 minutes from where i live, is the council going to put lights up in nobles park. Also there own public health officers said ''It's very therapeutic especially for the elderly for the elderly to have dogs. If an elderly person falls in nobles park late at night how long could they lie there before they are found. Why don't they fence off areas in each park for dogs only. I challenge the council to walk with me from the town hall to nobles park and see how long it takes.

The Saint

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 14:50: Here's a thought: What about following the system currently available in certain cities in Germany? To get a dog license, the dog's DNA must be on file for comparison. When careless owners don't clean up after their dogs, the DNA in the faeces is compared to the database and the owner fined accordingly. Surely that system would be far easier to enforce and careful dog owners would not be penalised.

RACHEL, (Manx ex-pat Molecular Biologist...)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 14:43: I am sick fed up of walking in beautiful countryside and parks and having to mind where I step because of the dog mess. Just two days ago I took a few minutes rest to sit on the grass in the Nobles Park (not the dog area) and then I had to move due to the stink of heated up excrement. I have been a dog owner on the island for the 7 years I have lived here, my dog is well trained, obedient on and off the lead and I always have in my pocket a number of bags to clean up any mess she makes. Now, it seems, the Corporation have taken the measure to ban me and my dog from green areas and force us into the 'dog area' in Nobles Park. It's a great area, long grass interspersed with cut walk paths, a superb effort. If only they had considered reasonable access from the public footpath and of course made adequate provision for the disabled. Quite simply they haven't, a total failure to consider the needs of the people actually using the area, a lack of consultation and half baked knee jerk ideas to the minority of irresponsible dog owners. Why restrict me and my dog? I detest the thoughtless and anti social pet owner as much as the next person, so catch them and hammer them in LAW. Why create a bylaw which targets the offending person, one that can be enforced against the ignorant and lazy owner who cannot be bothered to clean up after their dog. Slap a 2000 fine on them; put their faces in the newspaper, and ban them from keeping dogs anything in fact to punish the miscreant. And leave the responsible owners who have not broken the law alone. The simple fact is, as usual, it is easier and cheaper to malign the law abiding in order to avoid tackling the real problem pet owners. To all you ignorant dog owners who can't be bothered to pick up after your dog, thanks, no really thank you so much…

DISGRUNTLED, Douglas

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 13:52: I have a dog and I live in an apartment with no access to a garden. Therefore my dog requires regular walking and our local "green space" at Hutchinson Square is ideal for this. I always clean up after my dog and from what I can see most people who use the park do the same. There will always be lazy/thoughtless people who refuse to clean up after their dogs but in my experience they are more likely to walk their dogs on the footpaths (and roads of Douglas - those lazy people who seem to drag their dogs on the roads to "do their business" presumably deluding themselves into thinking that this is alright as it is not on the pavement!!!) around Douglas as I am constantly stepping in dog poo. If the corporation was serious about tackling the problem of dog litter, they would just have to post a few of their people on Douglas Promenade or in certain areas where there is a lot of dog litter found (Derby Square being one from my experience) and serve the owners with a fine. This could easily be justified as it would be a "nice little earner" for the government and the end result would be a much cleaner Douglas. It is just not practically possible for me to make my way to Noble's park 4 times a day.

Thanks

BRIAN

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 13:31: Well done Douglas Corporation. I hope they stick to their guns and also hope that Government Departments take note especially DAFF and MNH.

With a reduction in the number of areas where dogs may be exercised it will be easier for members of the public, responsible dog owners and Wardens to not only see who is making the mess, but also causing additional problems for the few responsible dog owners.

The paths at Langness, Fort Island, Scarlett, Ballaghennie, Smeale, Cronk y Bing and in fact the whole of the Ayres National Nature Reserve, Marine Drive, Point of Ayre and most other beauty spots on the Island, in addition to the Island's Capital are marred by dog mess.

Dogs should not be off leads at any of the Islands leading attractions. In areas which are sensitive to disturbance such as wildlife reserves, coastal paths in the bird nesting period and places well used by ramblers and their families such as the Ayres, dogs should not be permitted at any time.

For those people who claim that dog walkers are being victimised and those that might wish to see the results of so called responsible dog walkers go the the Marine Drive. It is a National Disgrace. In the North one cannot walk at Ballaghennie in comfort for having to watch out for dog mess. Despite a fairly lengthy period of warnings about picking up, no notice is being taken by the majority of dog owners who simply go to our parks and these remote and lovely places to let their dogs run wild and do their toilet. They have no intention of picking up; most do not have a bag with them. Why take a dog to a nature reserve? There are miles of beaches where they could walk their dogs without causing any disturbance to recreational users or wildlife? In many cases dogs are let oiut of the vehicles and they are so desperate having been locked in all day that they defecate in public car parks or on the first path they come to.

Irresponsible dog walkers allow their dogs to run about in public car parks where other walkers are trying to enjoy a bit of peace and quiet or go shopping only to be jumped on by their dogs or in some cases frightened by them. When a perfectly clean pair of trousers, jacket or skirt is muddied by these out of control dogs the owner does not offer to pay the cleaning bill or for a new item if it is ripped. Some dog owners ask their children to take their dogs for a walk in the belief that if the child is caught when the dog fouls nothing will happen to them. That is how responsible they are, the question is why have they got dogs if they cannot look after them?

It is a shame when you see responsible dog owners struggling with their dogs on leads in various areas around the Island only to see several other dog owners allowing their dogs to wander at will despite notices to the contrary. Having restricted areas will hopefully sort out the sensible from the irresponsible and keep our Island cleaner. It is difficult to catch offenders so that those that are caught should be hammered with fines of not less than 500 for a first offence and 2,500 for a second offence, there is no excuse.

MODDEY ARREY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 12:33: Someone should tell the lady who was ordered out of Woodbourne Square for walking her dog there that the new bye laws are not enforceable until there is clear signage indicating that she and her pet are banned, exactly where they are banned from and what the penalties are for ignoring the ban. The Corporation official who threw her out was in the wrong.

EXPAT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 12:27: Some of the comments on here are down right rude and offensive

For example "don't forget, people like you adapted wild dogs to nurture your own selfish requirements that you are unable to gain through normal life so don't even compare dogs to normal wildlife as dogs shouldn't be here and the wildlife has every right to be here" by Graeme on the 14th May. People like who Graeme? Me?

How dare you insult people like that, there is no reason for that kind of attitude.

I own a small dog, and yes I clean up after her thank you – EVERY TIME! We are always out and she loves the trams and the train and her football. When she is on the beach or in a Glen, it is the ball she is interested in and me, no one else and would certainly not "jump all over and attack" anyone.

I do not have the mentality of "I am always right" either thank you, If I see anyone in the area becoming nervous, she is called to my side immediately and the lead is put on. The point is, I spent many, many hours training my dog and invest a lot of time in her. She is a happy, loved and well behaved trusting dog. I am aware people have a fear of dogs; some have been attacked perhaps as children by them. However to tar all dogs and owners with the same brush is unfair and short sighted.

I am unhappy about the dog mess on the pavements also and have in the past complained to the Corporation, who were not much help, hence the reason I don't think the new Byelaws will help either. The Officers need to be out on the street first thing in a morning and school finish time to attempt to catch at least some of those responsible. Before I see any comments on the last statement, I am not blaming all parents walking to pick their children up either, I am merely putting forward ideas as to how to solve this issue.

CLAIRE, Douglas

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 12:24: Reading all these posts has made me very depressed.

The issue is not about being able to walk dogs have cats or any other animal it is about respect.

If dog owners respect other people and realise that not every one likes dogs, clean up after their dogs and cat owners realise the same although I do admit cleaning up after a cat is a lot more difficult a task! And people without dogs respect the rights of those of us who do have them we would all get on a lot better. No one seems to want ANYONE to do or have anything any more. It is the same when we use the roads no one wants anyone to have anything other than a bog standard small car on the road. What about an individuals rights? As long as no one else is seriously affected or their health put at risk surely we should all be able to live and let live? If it means having to clear up or tidy something away when the person uses a facility so be it.

For the record. I have 2 children, 3 small dogs, 2 cats and a horse; I have a small standard car and a big jeep. So I meet all sorts of prejudice no matter what I do or where I go and I get really down about it. I like to think I let others do as they will as long as it doesn't hurt me or mine, crack on I do my best to respect others freedom and right to do as they please. Stopping people taking dogs places for walks in these open spaces is wrong in my opinion. It is a public space to be enjoyed by all. Everyone should be able to go there but leave it in the same condition it is in when they arrive. Walkers wear paths down in popular places, Children can sometimes do damage accidentally, dogs can leave a mess, if it is not picked up by the owners it is offensive, cats the same. So most things affect the areas we all want to use We should all just have respect and value what is provided for us and take more care then the council wouldn't have to bring in restricting by-laws preventing the use of certain places!

P

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 10:57: I am surprised at the amount of hate shown towards dogs. Dogs, like children, are what people, and the environment, make them. Two good books for dog haters and dog owners and parents to read - the Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson and Don't Shoot the Dog by Karen Pryor.

M

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008 11:48: I can't really be bothered joining in with all the angry people and siding with any of their extreme views, and maybe this e-mail shouldn't be in the 'Dog bye-laws' thread. I just want to say that having always thought of myself as a fairly average member of society and having reached my mid 50's without acquiring a criminal record for any sort of anti-social behaviour, I have now started to feel permanently guilty and see myself as rather a nasty 'piece of work'. Why? Because I (used to) like a cigarette with a drink in the pub at the weekend (I didn't smoke at any other time, now I just don't bother going out very much) and I have a little dog which, because I work full-time and don't drive, I used to take for a walk, on his leash, around the streets near where I live, then, as long as there were no other dogs or children around, let off his leash for a run in Woodbourne Square. I know the extreme anti-dog people think that all dog owners are all evil liars, but I always pick up any mess that my dog leaves. I should also add that my husband does drive and takes him out for proper exercise at other times, although maybe that activity will be legislated against sometime soon. Obviously what I should do in future is leave the dog at home, buy a six-pack of strong lager and use my local square to do what I can no longer do in the pub – have a cigarette with my drink – that's what most public squares and gardens seem to be used for after all!

SUE

MONDAY, JUNE 09, 2008 14:42: Are the council going to exclude all guide dogs from the parks as well as ordinary dog owners. No disrespect to blind people but whose going to clean up the mess after there dogs as they can't see to pick it up. Don't forget part of the dog liscence goes towards paying eleven pounds an hour for the by law officer. Why don't they fence off certain areas in the park for dogs only. Wonder how many Douglas councilers and MHK's have dogs of their own because don't forget the rate payers pay their wages. Remember you rely on the dog owners votes to stay in the council. Why at the moment when the law isn't in action why is someone from the council hassiling the dog owners to get out of the parks.

THE SAINT

SATURDAY, JUNE 07, 2008 22:14: Tiddles, Look up the words "satire" and "humour" in the dictionary. What makes you assume that I have a cat, or dog for that matter? Read the thread above yours by Liz for a good example of balanced reasoning. At no time in my post did I suggest that it was OK for any animal, be it cat, dog, horse, human or pterodactyl to foul everywhere and everywhere, you seem to have interpreted the post in the way which suits you. I don't believe that there are fixed attitudes of dog, cat or pterodactyl owners and as most things in life, one must take the good with the bad and not waste the short span of life we have. Please everyone, lighten up.

FIDO

SATURDAY, JUNE 07, 2008 15:05: FIDO - you just made me laugh out loud. Very amusing! I've read this thread with a lot of interest, its very irritating that there's the usual "are you Manx? Get on the boat!!" rubbish....(CK, I'm disappointed!!) BUT - keeping to the thread...I really can see both sides of the argument here. I have a cat, and have to say to those suggesting new cat laws....I'm presuming you must be kidding, right? Because surely everyone knows you can't follow a cat around cleaning up after it!?! To those who suggest that certain people must be lacking in human friends or contact due to liking dogs, well, that's pretty harsh, most of the people I know with dogs have families, kids, and lots of friends thanks! It's just down to liking animals! Dogs can be brilliant, certain breeds of working dogs are extremely intelligent, and most regular dogs are pretty smart, they're loyal, fun, a great way to exercise and can be great alarm systems! However, I guess if you are scared of them for whatever reason, having them 'pouncing on you' can be a bit much. But, I can honestly say, after just spending 2 weeks on the Island, I wasn't pounced on once! And I did a LOT of walking, across the beach, through the parks and countryside....I also have to say I wasn't horrified by any large amounts of dog mess on the pavements or stinking lamp posts. I didn't step in any dog mess, and wasn't traumatised by aggresive animals! Yes, there are people who don't clean up after their dog, and people who should keep lively dogs on a tighter lead; but lets not forget that dogs do need to be let off the lead somewhere, and its not always possible to make sure there's no-one with any dog-related phobia within a 3 mile radius! Yes, dog mess is horrible and annoying, and it SHOULD be cleaned up by responsible owners...but that doesn't seem to justify some of the very extreme views on here. Lastly, I just wonder if the people who have children are aware that by looking terrified and making a huge issue of it when a friendly dog comes for a sniff or a bounce of a ball, they're potentially instilling a fear of dogs into their kids!

LIZ

SATURDAY, JUNE 07, 2008 15:04: Well done Fido. You have just proved Josey R's point about the attitude of cat owners to their pets using everyone elses garden as their personal toilet. So according to you, it's okay for cats to foul anywhere and everywhere they, like but not dogs. What's the difference? It's just as offensive and just as dangerous. Maybe you should just buy a nappy for your cat when you send it out when you wouldn't have to walk it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I wouldn't have to clear up after it. Or maybe I should collect up the mess from my garden each day and post it through the letterbox of the cats owners.

TIDDLES

THURSDAY, JUNE 05, 2008 16:58: I decided I'd take my cat for a walk earlier. 20 minutes gone trying to catch cat, 30 minutes gone trying to get collar and lead on cat, dragged strongly protesting cat through front door, Halfway down road I let the cat go due to painful hands where I was scratched trying to get the collar on, climbed over 3 fences and through gardens trying to get cat back before it messed in someones garden Waiting now for lawsuits from disgruntled garden owners protesting at human damage to plants etc.

I have now decided to have a very tall CCTV camera installed which covers neighbouring gardens and when offending cat is seen to be naughty I can then go and knock at neighbours door and ask permission to clean it up. Just hoping the bruises from bothering neighbours at all times of the day are less painful than the feline inflicted injuries trying to get collar and lead on.

FIDO

THURSDAY, JUNE 05, 2008 11:29: Julie you said you are 'terrified of dogs and hardly ever go walking now because of it' which no one can challenge other than those who know you best, then you said you are 'regularly pounced on' by unrestrained dogs when you walk the prom. I don't say you haven't had a bad dog related experience on the promenade but unless regularly means something to you that it doesn't mean to me then I do not believe that you are 'regularly pounced on'. You also said there are 'different dogs fighting every night' on Douglas Head. I know Douglas promenade and Douglas Head and I do not believe that is true either. Anti dog propaganda riddles most of the anti dog posts. If you don't like dogs then just say so: I understand that. It isn't necessary to add overblown rhetoric to justify the point. It isn't fair to demonise dogs and dog owners with part truths or untruths or exaggeration. However you can take comfort in the knowledge that you have won! Douglas now has the most stringent anti-dog bye-laws anywhere in the UK. They are not allowed in any publicly owned space other than a strip of Noble's park and a section of the beach and then only at certain times, even though dog owners pay the same rates as anyone else. And no dog is allowed to be anywhere in Douglas off the lead. So the position is absolutely clear all you need now is for the people who should have been policing the old dog control measures (which were plenty restrictive enough) to do their jobs properly. Good luck with that.

PLi

THURSDAY, JUNE 05, 2008 10:10: I regularly allow my dog to foul on Douglas beach, but only by the shoreline, that way, the sea washes it away anyway.

ANON

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 04, 2008 18:45: phew. for the first time ever i put my view across and get called a liar by PLi. Walk behind me every day do you and park behind me up douglas head ???- no you cant do or youd see i was telling the truth you are obviously a dog lover - like i said they are always right (in their mind or their dreams) but to call someone a liar is disgraceful almost as bad as doggie doos on the pavement PLi your just unbelievable - and i say this to you - i am not a liar

JULIE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 04, 2008 15:45: I am actually a massive dog fan but I have to say that some of the comments given have been well justified. I have noticed a lot of dog mess in Onchan particularly around the School Road area where people walking to the Glen fail to clean up after the dogs and also there are many who do not have their dogs restrained when they should have. It is the responsibility of the dog owners to clean up the mess that their animals create (and Josie, I agree with you too, cat owners should do the same cat mess irritates me just as much as dog mess,) I also agree that there should be time restrictions for when people can walk animals in public areas such as beaches and parks and my I say this mainly because if you have children in an area then a dog comes and does its business next to you (which they invariably do) it is unpleasant and unhygienic. Restrictions have not been made everyone just in a few areas, there are still lots of places you can walk and exercise your dog. Now bear in mind I am saying this as a dog lover! Those dog owners (and they know who they are) who aren't cleaning up after their dogs are the ones who should be shamed and held responsible.

FM

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 04, 2008 12:24: Here we go again:

"…….but I do walk the prom and regularly get pounced on by dogs off leads

when I make a comment to the owners that if I wanted a dog to jump on me and lick me - then I'd get one this always causes arguments (ever noticed dog owners are always RIGHT……"

And the even more spectacular:

"……...try lifting the other poor dog and at same time stop the other dog from attacking as I watched this familiar event (it happens with different dogs every night)……"

What's wrong with just saying that you don't like dogs and you're glad that the Corporation are exacting a mass punishment on all dogs and dog owners? That I can understand. Just say 'I hate dogs and I'm glad that their lives are being made worse' or even 'I hate dogs and I am not prepared to share a public space with dog owners, even if they have helped to pay for that public space as much as I have'. Why try and justify your essentially irrational dislike of these animals by making claims that cannot possibly be true?

Maybe dogs off their leads have approached you on the promenade and clearly you don't like it, and clearly those dogs shouldn't have been off their leads in the first place, but you are not 'regularly pounced on'. I have walked that promenade from my brother's house thousands of times and never had a dog related pouncing. Not one. Ever. I defy anyone else to prove that they have. I'm sure you did see an incident of dogs being attacked on Douglas Head but it doesn't happen 'every night with different dogs'. Any more than another contributor's child is attacked a dozen times a year or that all the lamp posts stink of dog urine, or no dog owners that use Hutchinson Square ever clear up after their animals.

I stand by the case that it is possible to share a public space with dogs whose owners take their responsibilities seriously. Delinquent owners should be punished to protect everyone. Your authorities haven't punished anyone under the dog control powers they had. New bye-laws will seriously affect law abiding dog owners who live in Douglas and cannot now exercise their pets. The delinquent dog owners didn't give a stuff about the old rules which could have controlled the situation very well and will be equally dismissive of the new ones. Your authorities were too lazy to do their jobs properly and enforce the old rules and will be too lazy to enforce the new rules. Result: you've driven away the dog owners you could trust, you've had dogs destroyed because they couldn't be properly cared for any longer and all you have left are the idiots whose uncontrolled dogs made the problem in the first place. Well done Douglas

PLi

TUESDAY, JUNE 03, 2008 13:51: If dog by-laws are being introduced then may I suggest CAT BY-LAWS? I would like to know how many CAT OWNERS clean up after their pets? I think the answer would be hardy any? I am sick and tired of having to clear up other peoples cat mess from my garden. But no one EVER complains about this. Why? It is just as offensive and just as dangerous to peoples health as dog mess but for some reason it seems to be acceptable! When I mentioned this to a collegue at work she looked at me as though I had two heads and said 'Well, there's not much you can do about cats and where they mess, is there?' Great answer. I guess it's okay for cat owners to say that , seeing as their pets only deposit their piles of pooh in other peoples gardens and not theirs. I wonder how many of the people on this thread own cats? Maybe the next time I catch the lady across the road's cats poohing in my garden maybe I should collect it up and deposit it in hers and see how she likes it. People always pick on dog owners and tar everyone dog owner with the same brush. Most dog owners are responsible and clean up after their pets. The same can't be said for Cat Owners! There's only a small minority of dog owners who don't clean up after their pets but EVERY dog owner gets the blame? I think TRACEY from Dougals is a prime example. She is tarring every single dog owner with the same brush!!!! And I am rather confused by her statement 'lazy or what!' It would appear she is inferring that all dog owners are lazy because some drive their dogs. Is there some law we don't know about that says owners aren't allowed to drive their dogs in cars????? Just because one dog owner doesn't clean up after her dogs doesn't mean ALL dog owners are the same.

JOSEY R

TUESDAY, MAY 03, 2008 10:14: this has been very interesting to read. graeme i agree with you im 53 and terrified of dogs and hardly ever go walking now because of it

but i do walk the prom and regularly get pounced on by dogs off leads

when i make a comment to the owners that if i wanted a dog to jump on me and lick me - then id get one this always causes arguements (ever noticed dog owners are always RIGHT). one other thing i watch boat go out in evenings (up douglas head) it never fails to amaze me that there are really agressive dogs off the lead there and the other night i noticed a man walking peacefully with two little dogs one on a lead the other not on lead but it was perfectly fine UNTIL - yes a very large agressive dog unleashed but with its owner standing watching as the big dog went for the the little dogs- this older man had to swing his little dog on the lead into his arms try lifting the other poor dog and at same time stop the other dog from attacking as i watched this familiar event (it happens with different dogs every night) i wondered who was going to be the first to have a heart attack me from watching, the poor man trying to fend off the dogs - or the poor little dogs themsleves ALL while the owner of the big dog WATCHED.

JULIE

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008 12:43: What I would like to know is why we are only getting dog bylaws? What about cat bylaws? Why do people always pick on dog owners and tar everyone dog owner with the same brush. Most dog owners are responsible and clean up after their pets. There's only a small minority who don't but EVERY dog owner gets the blame?

I can't say the same for Cat Owners! I am sick and tired of having to clear up other peoples cat mess from my garden. But no one EVER complains about this. Why? It is just as offensive and just as dangerous to peoples health as dog mess but for some reason it seems to be acceptable! When I mentioned this to a collegue at work she looked at me as though I had two heads and said 'Well, there's not much you can do about cats and where they mess, is there?' Great answer. I guess it's okay for cat owners to say that seeing as their pets only deposit their piles of pooh in other peoples gardens and not theirs. I wonder how many of the people on this thread own cats? Maybe the next time I catch the lady across the road's cats poohing in my garden I should collect it up and deposit it in hers and see how she likes it.

JOSEY R

SATURDAY, MAY 24, 2008 22:42: The probable reason for the suspension of the Douglas dog byelaws ( if they have ) is likely to be that all the parks and the beach don't yet display correct signage and also that the parks still have the dog waste bins in them. It would be not the best idea to try and tell someone they are breaking a byelaw when the signs and presence of bins would indicate otherwise. With so many signs and bins to move at 'corpy speed', the end of the summer would probably be the earliest for all to be sorted.

ELAINE

SUNDAY, MAY 18, 2008 20:34: Tracey, Why should Jurby get the dog strip? I don't think you should push to get the bye law enforced, what would you do with your day then? You really need to get a life. What sort of sad individual takes photos and keeps the time of when dogs pooh! Horse riders should clean up the mess the horses makes on the roads and on green grassy walk ways. Whats good for the goose and all that!

PINKNFLUFFY

SUNDAY, MAY 18, 2008 16:40: Got to say i am in Graemes corner here. In fact I'm even more hard line on the issue.

I live out West have two children now 14 and 12. Not a problem now but when they were young taking them for a walk on a Promenade, Park or open space was a nightmare because of dogs or dog faeces. One of my kids had a fear of dogs and went into absolute panic whenever one approached, dont know why but she just did. Bottom line is shes rights in law, a dog is just property and doesnt.

Often dogs run up jump up on you, run around you or just stop and start barking, the owners then usually approach and say rubbish like 'dont worry she doesnt bite shes just playing'. Thats not good enough to me, if your dog is doing any of these things and you dont bring it to heel immediately or it refuses to obey a call to heel then it is out of your control. If its out of your control then it is a dog at large which is an offence. If most dog owners were honest nearly every dog having a walk in the park falls into this description. If thats the case it should be on a lead at all times, if not it shouldnt be out of you home.

In my perfect world there would be many prosecutions with a third strike and you lose your dog rule. One dog per household maximum and certain types not just banned but actively sought out and destroyed.

Before you ask yes i have a cat. I am sure he dumps outside my garden though i know most of the time he dumps in it as we have cleared an area he likes to use. However, i dont recall a cat either on its own or ganging up as a pack ever killing anyone, have you ?.

GARY

SUNDAY, MAY 18, 2008 16:12: PLi – perhaps the reason people are becoming more cantankerous these days has something to do with Government, either from the interfering natures of "civil" servants and MHKs or from the noise of intolerant minorities, wanting to run more and more of our lives for us? We are so stupid we cannot be allowed to make our own decisions so they must be allowed to dictate to us. Not a problem unique to the Isle of Man, either. Unless we reverse direction it will only get worse.

CK, Ramsey

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2008 12:50: Sharon - if you wish to enter into a discussion, please use adult discussion - never yet have I seen a needle in Nobles park or anywhere else that I have mentioned, never yet has a fagend or beercan jumped up on my children or scared them half to death! And how does not having a dog equal not having a life? Your the type of sad person who obviously must have a dog as a substitute for real life, human happiness! Please understand dog lovers - dogs must be kept on a lead wherever you go and must not be allowed to mess anywhere apart from in the dog owners own gardens, keep the annoyance and disease of them in your own backyards - you feel the need to have them so please don't pass the annoyance of them on to us normal people! Smokers aren't allowed to 'disrupt' non smokers lives are they, so please take note, I'd rather walk past a fagend on the road than stinking dog mess.

GRAEME

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2008 10:03: Anonymous- you have met a responsible dog owner in fact you met two of them- the couple who were walking their dog on Bradda Head yesterday afternoon and had it on a lead. You then met an ignorant idiot who can't control his/her dogs, but had them off the lead anyway and they went on to have ruined your picnic. Responsible dog owners do exist you confirmed it yourself; your problem is with the idiot. You should have rung the police. It's an offence to have dogs out of control, and if they're off the lead in a public place then, as you say, legally they are strays. The idiot who owned the dogs was liable to compensate you for your losses and distress.

I've yet to meet a dog hater who doesn't think in the same extreme terms as you ie Langness is disgusting and covered in dog mess when plainly that cannot be true. It's just another anti-dog myth from another dog hater who loves to spread extreme anti-dog propaganda.

PLi

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 22:24: Get a life graeme or get a dog.

What a load of rubbush you speak there is more fagends, bearcans, litter etc than dog crap on the streets and in parks, i would be more scared of needles in nobles park than anything else.

SHARON

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 19:19: I was up Bradda Head this afternoon with my three small children, grandmother, auntie her husband and her son. With the weather being so glorious we decided to head up there for a picnic. Well what a disaster it was. We settled half way up the hill on a flat part rolled out the rug and sat in the sun enjoying the views of the beach and jet skis in the sea. There were quite a few walkers going up the hill, it was so calm and peacefull, one couple with a dog (on a lead), everything was fine. We started on the picnic.

Two minutes later we were pounced on by two large dogs. I would guess they were labradors? They ran straight over the rug, knockeing over drinks and everything in their path licked half the tub of butter, started on the pringles and left footprints in the sandwiches. We had barely started eating and all it took was a minute of mahem by two stray dogs to ruin our afternoon. The children were distraught. They would of continued demolishing the picnic and jumping all over us but my aunties husband had to grip both dogs tightly by their collars and had to hit them to calm down until the owner caught up to put them back on their leads. He didnt even apologise.

I am yet to meet a responsible dog owner, i dont believe they exist. And as for jeremy clarkson i dont blame him, langness is covered of dog excrement. Disgusting.

ANONYMOUS

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 13:05: I just wish to point out, in defence of dog owners, that at no time have my children been 'attacked', just that the dogs not on leads appear for some reason to be attracted to small children and tend to playfully, and quickly, jump on them which, unsurprisingly, scare them out of their wits and has my 2 year old in tears every time which isn't nice to see and have therefore been put off dogs in a big way. Also, I fully support the dog by laws but you are right PLi that there is never anyone around to enforce the laws and prosecute those who break them - Its like having a no under 18's rule for nightclubs but no bouncers on the premises.

GRAEME

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 12:35: Graeme, unfortunately the scientific research works against you. Statistically, people who keep dogs live longer and are happier than people who don't, because they exercise more when they are older, and the companionship that comes with caring for the dog reduces stress and depression amongst dog owners compared to non dog owners; and children sharing a home with any pet, including a dog are as less likely to catch infectious illnesses because their immune systems are better developed. Sorry, but living with a dog does you good.

You've gotten your way though, once the Douglas bye-laws are implemented it will be a criminal offence to have a dog off a lead anywhere in Douglas on land that is under the control of the Corporation and it will be another offence to allow a dog to enter or be present in a public space. At the moment under your current bye-laws it is a criminal offence to fail to clean up after your dog (claiming that you didn't notice what the dog had done, or you don't have anything to clear it up with are not excuses the dog owner can use) and it is also currently an offence to have a dog off the lead in any public space in Douglas.

The discussion here is about whether the Corporation needed to go further and ban dogs being in public parks at all. Judging from the horrendous litany of direct attacks suffered by your children from uncontrolled dogs in many different places throughout the Isle of Man it isn't surprising that you don't like dogs. As I've said before I'm an ex pat fairly frequent visitor of my Manx family members and am very familiar with all the places you mentioned. The Isle of Man really seems to have deteriorated since I was last there- I never once had to jump in and save any of my children from dog attacks; what with the one last night in Noble's Park Graeme is up to 13 random attacks in the last year on just one of his children; so with this and all the lamp posts in Douglas stinking with dog urine and the children knee deep in dog mess the Old Town suddenly seems to have gone to pot dog-wise, and taken the rest of the Island with it. And there isn't a single scrap of evidence of responsible dog ownership even from folks who spend hours keeping Hutchinson Square under surveillance and who, for their trouble, suffer at the hands of a maniac multi dog owner who orders her dogs to foul outside their house Why is it like that on the Island? There's a park opposite my workplace and so far this morning eight people have exercised their dogs, three of them let their dogs off the lead which they shouldn't have done, but they did at least all clean up after their dogs..

The wonder is that anyone manages to survive amongst all this dog carnage! Shouldn't the authorities be doing something about this dog related mayhem? Passing stricter bye-laws isn't going to work when the police and dog wardens can see all this taking place and do nothing about it. If they could be bothered to protect you from this Manx dog nightmare with the extensive powers they already had before the new bye-laws they won't bother to do so after the bye-laws come into force. As it seems there are hardly any responsible dog owners on the Isle of Man, passing new bye laws can't possibly help.

PLi

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 10:11: Peejay - no, none at all, and I don't want any either thank you, been put off by dogs (I wont go into all that again) and the unbelievable amount of cats in our close excreting all over our garden! Its disgusting and is making me, as a dad of 2 young outdoor loving children, very angry!!

GRAEME

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 20:43: Graeme, do you have any kind of pet at all. Honest answers only please

PEEJAY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 15:40: What gets me is that the dog owners that participate in these dialogues are always the ones who keep their dogs on leads and always clean up their messes and always blame all the other dog owners for their inconsideration, however, all the dog owners I ever see have no respect for the spaces that they are ruining by not having dogs on leads and letting them dump everywhere! Strange how we never see you 'good, considerate' dog owners anywhere, do you never go out, or do you simply not exist??? Only last night we were again in Nobles park and one mans dog poo'd then jumped up on my 2 year old and another dog, again not on a lead, barged my eldest son out of the way to pick and chew the life out of my sons brand new cricket ball - I didn't see any wildlife doing any of these destructive and dangerous things - don't forget, people like you adapted wild dogs to nurture your own selfish requirements that you are unable to gain through normal life so don't even compare dogs to normal wildlife as dogs shouldn't be here and the wildlife has every right to be here and enjoyed my family and I, whenever we aren't being pounced upon by dogs. And you shouldn't take your dogs on a beach anyhow, especially at this time of the year, as if you are so bright and up on this wildlife thing you will know full well that there are many ground nesting birds which dogs would have great delight in ruining and killing, so please keep your best friend OFF the beaches unless a fine will undoubtedly be heading your way, and the more you get the better. And, I am Manx, why should that mean that I know better, an extremely narrow minded and insular way of thinking, its people like you that give Manx people a bad name, if your Manx then you would not let your dog out to ruin our beautiful outdoors!

GRAEME

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 14:27: As usual with bigots such as yourself, you entirely miss the point. The natural world is full of the excreta of one sort of creature or other (including humans!), plus all sorts of other bacteria which are potentially harmful to people. To single out dogs for especial vitriol is completely unreasonable. Unfortunately for you, there is a great mass of people who own dogs and get much pleasure and companionship from them. Some are undoubtedly inconsiderate when it comes to cleaning up after their dogs but in my experience most dog owners are reasonably considerate and they should not be penalized for the inconsiderate minority. Whilst there is a case for public parks and such-like to be out of bounds for dogs the bulk of the countryside and beaches is there for ALL, including dogs. I have been to most of the places you mention and to say that your comments are "overkill" is no understatement. I sincerely hope you are not Manx – if you are you should know better and if you're not, there is, as they say, a boat every morning, so get on it!

CK, Ramsey

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 13:51: Dear CK - I don't think I ask too much do I for my children not to be attacked and jumped upon by dogs and having to side step everywhere so they don't get covered in dog excrement? Thankyou for not wanting to live in my world cause yours sounds like it would be quite disgusting! Your obviously a dog owner who has no real 'human' life experience of having children that require looking after as best we can. If you read my thread properly you would see that the places that we take our children to are hardly sterilized and un-natural - if you really want to make tunnelled comments like this please read everything that is put in front of you unless you end up looking silly like you have done. Thankyou

GRAEME

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 11:01: Graeme – perhaps we should kill off every other life form on the planet so that you and your (undoubtedly ill-adjusted) children can live the sterilized, un-natural life you seem to crave? Frankly, your world would not be worth living in.

CK, Ramsey

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008 13:17: I too totally agree with the dog by laws being brought in and I also think that the screw should be tightened even further by it being a criminal offence to have a dog off its lead and weeing or excreting anywhere in a public place, after all, we're not allowed to smoke indoors anymore are we, an on the spot fine of 500 would be a good starter.

Why oh why have dogs anyway, they are derived from wild animals and were adapted to assist humans in various ways - I agree that we fully appreciate the value of Police dogs, Guide dogs, working dogs etc... but to have them in your house, eating in your kitchen, dirtying your gardens, dirtying public pathways, sleeping on your beds, licking your faces is just beyond belief, I cant understand how any of you dog owners can do these things.

Anyhow, I have read the many complaints regarding dogs and their owners and I want to make my complaint which is to do with dogs in public places also, but my reason for being so angry at dogs and their owners is because I have a 2 year old son and we love to take him, and my older son out for walks, to play in the park, to watch wildlife, to play on the beach etc.. yet everywhere we go without exception there is always dog dirt and also dogs running riot off their leads, both of which cause a danger to both my children and make a day out really unpleasurable some times. The following places are where we have encountered this: Langness, Peel beach, Union Mills railways lines, Nobles Park, Ramsey river pathway (Cooil Roye?), Castletown Park, Douglas Head, Point of Ayre, Cronkbourne, Tromode damn, Scarlett, Ballaghennie beach & Cronkbourne cricket pitch. I have had to jump in to save my 2 year old son maybe a dozen or so times in the last 12 months to save him jumped on by dogs off leads, I have lost count of the amount of times we have had to clean his shoes, it is just not on, it is dangerous and causes misery to a nice day out. Get rid of your dogs, go out and have a nice day out with humans and let others enjoy the parks and pathways for what they intended which isn't a dog tray or training ground.

GRAEME

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008 23:49: I live overlooking Hutchinson Square park and over the years come to learn the routine:

6.15am - 8.45am dogs are taken to the park, some are even DRIVEN!! lazy or what!!

ALL dogs are let off their lead at the gate.

Owners sit on a bench.

Dogs do a few laps of the park, sniffing as they go.

Do a dump. Go for a jog. Have a wee.

Owners look around to check no ones watching, whistle, clap at them etc. Lead goes back on. Off they go.

This routine happens again from 10pm.

In the last month i have watched on only 3 occasions owners pick up their dogs mess. I have sent photos to the dog warden.

Of course they all say they pick it up.. whats needed is a designated stretch of grass for dogs only. Jurby would do! I dont see why our beautiful parks that gardeners spend hours working on should be covered in this filth. The parks are for PEOPLE to enjoy. They are not safe to enter. We should have dog wardens out and about like traffic wardens with whopping great fines.

There's one woman from around the area who has 4 dogs, walks them all at the same time. I have shouted at her several times for not picking up her piles of filth. Now she tries her best to get her dogs to filth outside my front path. I am collecting her filth and will be posting it through her letter box very soon.

And for all those 'picker uppers' out there you should encourage dog wardens parading the streets as you are committing no offence.

TRACEY, Douglas

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008 10:07: This is getting confusing but apparently the bye-laws forbidding dogs into public open spaces and parks in Douglas have been suspended until September according to a Councillor for Derby ward. Regardless of our varying views about dogs does anybody know what is actually happening?

PLi

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 12:50: As a dog owner, of 2, yes 2 dogs. I am extremely responsible and clean up after both of my dogs. No matter where they decide to do the deed. However, the amount of times I see people letting there dogs do the deed and they pretend they are on the phone or walk the other way, head down, is a joke. I would personally love to say something, but you'd only get into a fight with the irresponsible dog owners. People like this should be named and shamed. But some of the comments on Dogs is obviously from people without dogs who have nothing else to whinge about, but hey ho stops them picking on Jeremy Clarkson !!!!! To the gentlemen that wants to visit the Island you get on that boat with your dog and come here for your holidays. Tell all your mates with dogs (obviously) to come too. Oh, and I have to say as for the streets stinking of urine……. What a load of rubbish !!!!!! And if there are places that do smell it's not from dogs……… So for all you people who hate dogs – TOUGH LUCK. They are here to stay.

A PROUD DOG OWNER

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 11:17: Pli, we are pleased you are not going to visit with your pet, we have more than enough dogs here thanks, but we hope you have a nice time wherever it is you choose to go. PEEJAY, it made me laugh that you criticised someone else for not using their real name! Pot, kettle and black spring to mind! I do not think we can stop people walking their dogs through the streets, on a lead please, but I have to agree with earlier posts that our green parks and public places are simply not the place to exercise them. It seems Douglas Corporation agrees with me, good.

ANNIE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 22:17: Quite unbelievable Douglas pedestrian (too embarrassed to use your real name). four submissions to this thread and you think that this is all that is required to form a solid base for your anti dog drivel. I am a dog owner and like the majority of dog owners, clean up after our pets. It is the minority, I repeat minority who should not be allowed to own a pet. If it were the other way round, we would be knee deep in animal excrement. However, lets not stop at dogs. Why not a ban on cats who creep around gardens using flower beds etc as their own private toilet (no owners following them cleaning up after them. I did not see anywhere that dog licence fees would be scrapped, after all what do we get for our license fee – oh I remember, sod all

PEEJAY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 21:37: I'm not so sure that I need to be too surprised that these reactions are entirely negative to my assertion that Douglas Corporation has gone too far in punishing local dog owners with their revised bye-laws- internet blogs are notorious for attracting people with irrational and extreme views (of which, off course, I may be one- I like dogs) and dogs and dog owners are an easy target to lash out at.

To be clear my family are devoted to our dog and take their responsibilities to it and the rest of our local community very seriously, which clearly involves worming it regularly and cleaning up after it very carefully. I don't have a dog in Douglas- I'm an ex pat. I was thinking of a visit to the town I grew up in and was researching the Isle of Man on dog friendly websites to see what local conditions were like, you know being aware that there are people who just hate dogs and wanting to be sure that we didn't cause unnecessary offence, when I read about your new bye-laws- obviously I won't be making the visit.

However, I refuse to believe that 'every gate and lamp post' in Douglas stinks repulsively of dog urine whenever the sun shines, or that people are overwhelmed by the stench. Our dog is a bitch, so lamp posts aren't much use to it anyway.

My recollection of Douglas, although it is a year or two ago now, was that it was a remarkably clean place. You obviously have a Corporation that works hard to keep the streets and public places free of litter and mess- my local Council could learn a thing or two from them. I don't recognise any part of Douglas where you needed to spend more than half your time watching out for and dodging dog faeces- in fact I don't think I know of anywhere in the world where such conditions exist. However, you're there and I'm not, and if it is like that your police and dog warden had plenty of powers to do something about it before you took the measure to ban all dogs from every public open space irrespective of how carefully the dog was being handled. To state that isn't finger pointing, it's just the plain truth, and anyway, if you are over run with delinquent dog owners allowing their animals to pollute the town the existence of the bye-laws won't change anything, those owners are just that- delinquent and they won't care about your bye-laws unless your authorities get round to doing the enforcement they should have been doing in the first place. No one should get away with giving the majority of good dog owners a bad name or spoiling any space for dog owners and non owners.

Dog ownership being restricted to people with large PRIVATE spaces seems to suggest that only rich people should own them, which is just nonsense. There's a wealth of evidence demonstrating that owning and caring for a dog bring a wealth of health and emotional benefits to owners, especially older people for whom the companionship can be very comforting. Public spaces can be successfully shared with dogs especially when the animal is wormed regularly, toileted away from the public area (like in our small private space), thoroughly cleaned up after if there is a mishap; and the dog is controlled on a lead. That's what the Corporation should campaign for.

I'm not sure what you could add to your bye-laws that could make them 'go far enough' other than pass more bye-laws that ban dogs from existing in the town at all.

From my point of view it is a sad, unnecessary and utterly draconian shift but I'm not surprised you're revelling in it- as I said there are people who just hate dogs and there's no reasoning with them.

PLi.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008 12:07: Well PLi, you were surprised that nobody was reacting to the implementation of these new laws, and clearly people are, and most of us (75% of us on this thread so far as I type), are delighted! Its all very well dog owners saying 'I always clean up, its everyone elses fault' but when I walk through the residential streets of Douglas on these sunny mornings, the stink of urine drying on every gatepost and lamp post in the sunshine is overwhelming and, frankly, repulsive. Are you saying that you do not allow your dog to do this, or that you wash it down afterwards? If its neither of these then you are indeed part of the problem and ought to stop pointing the finger at other people. I applaud the Corporation for their stance on this, we all acknowledge the value of Police dogs, Guide dogs and working dogs on farms, but the tighter the laws on people who live in areas where they don't have a large PRIVATE space to exercise a dog, the more people might think before they buy one, and the less the rest of us will have to put up with this foul and disgusting stench. Good on you Douglas Corporation, tighten the screw a bit more!

A DOUGLAS PEDESTRIAN.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 18:45: I agree with Angela in her post. Anyone who has children and knows the dangers (blindness) and the fact that no matter where they (children) are there is dog 'mess'. Yesterday I took my kids for a walk and spent more than half the time telling them to "watch out" because there was excrement on the pavement. I'm sick of cleaning shoes, trainers and carpets. If we keep dogs in one place then maybe we'll have less mess. If Douglas Corporation also picked up ANY dog not on a leash and with the owner, it would be better. Increasing the licence and heavier fines (actually enforced) would also make people think about their responsibility of owning an animal that makes such a dangerous mess.

S.B.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 11:43: I'm really pleased with the new laws, although personally I don't think they go far enough.

ANGELA

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 10:56: I'm surprised that no one has reacted to Douglas Corporation's recent implementation of the most draconian anti-dog bye-laws in Europe. Effectively, dogs are prohibited from all parks and open spaces, including Douglas Head, the Villa Marina and the beach other than before 10am and after 6pm, and the only lawful dog exercise space left in the town in a patch of muddy ground on Noble's Park. Now the anti-dog lobby will kick off about dog waste. But the way to deal with owners who won't clean up after their animals is to catch them and prosecute them to the full force of your bye-laws, up to 1000 fine. It's simply cruel and unimaginative to impose a mass punishment on all dog owners - the vast majority of whom are entirely responsible about their animals and who do not impose a social cost on other residents.

I feel particularly sad for older people many of whom keep a dog and benefit from the companionship and the increased activity that goes with caring for a pet, but for whom the trek to and from the Noble's Park's dog compound won't be achievable.

Well done Douglas Corporation and Councillors for an especially stupid, hurtful and small-mindedly spiteful piece of power abuse. I hope the misery you will cause is worth it.

PLi

 
 
 

Back to the top of the page