Dog Fouling Issue Touches Raw Nerve On Facebook

But, how can this difficult issue be further and effectively addressed so that dog fouling is stopped permanently? http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=188824131161550&id=100001018931166 http://www.facebook.com/downnews [caption id="attachment_22181" align="alignleft" width="131" caption="Time to chill out on the pooh issue. Dog owners should not allow their pets to mess on roads and public places, and should lift. "][/caption] Certainly in most countries such as in Canada and the US and across Europe, one common factor underlies dog welfare and that is that many of these countries are not rabies free. Will it take rabid dogs on our streets to eventually bring about legislation that all dogs must be locked or at least under real control? Rabies is certainly a killer but we are thankfully not at that stage yet. The reality is that judging by the comments in Facebook that it is an attitudinal problem, going right to the heart of our culture. Many wish to change this, understandably and rightly so. At a recent Council Environment Committee meeting, a discussion on the issue of dog fouling certainly animated the Councillors present who all wanted the matter addressed more directly. But then the issue of resourcing emerged. The Council enforcement officers have also the responsibilty of addressing anti-social behaviour across the district such as possibly working with the police on late night drinking problems, or litter lout and fly tipping, or other hotspots that may arise. They have a wide area to cover and are therefore limited in their capacity. It was agreed that Council officers would direct the enforcement officers more for a period at the issue of dog fouling. It emerged that there were only 10 convictions for dog fouling over the last year recorded and set against that was a cost of arouind £100,000 for maintaining the enforcement operation. But one could argue also that dog fouling is itself inherently another form of anti-social behaviour in itself and therefore not separate from the core body of work the enforcement officers have to embrace. Perhaps in reality is is an impossible task, under-resourced. There may be other ways to address attitudinal change perhaps in the short-term, but it may be difficult to measure the outcomes. Giving fines to law-breakers is clearly not an effective deterrent at the moment and fines and quite low. The enforcement officers have to ensure that when pursuing a prosecution that a number of boxes are ticked which in itself presents a barrier. And there is an issue too of high profile enforcement officers wearing uniforms and in a marked van will deter offenders from allowing their dogs to foul in their prescence. It is a very complex issue. We agrree as a society that murder is morally and legally wrong. We have come to that position after a long process of decision-making in our society. Certainly the legal imperatives are set in stone and the consequences for flouting the law were in the past facing a death penalty, now a lengthy prison sentence. The law therefore on dog fouling needs to be strong enough, and currently is not. It is not a sufficient deterrent. And as for the moral aspects of this, ‘love thy neighbour’ does not seem to come into it. There is a blatant disrespect on-going on the part of some dog owners. How we regard each other as citizens and neighbours is central to this issue. Some people cannot understand why people allow their dogs for example, as two complainants said, to repeatedly foul in front of  local primary schools. But these were not isolated examples. In these specific cases, perhaps what is required is that a polite letter be sent to the ‘offender’ from the Council indicating that they have been reported for dog fouling and that they should comply with the Council by-laws. Providing appropriate information and even a few doggie pooh bags as an inducement. Repeated offences could therefore attract the selective targetting of the enforcement officers after three warnings.There could even he a confidential hotline to stamp this out and a Three Strikes policy in operation. This is just an idea. I’m sure there are a hundred approaches equally good in addressing this problem. Perhaps more could be done to enlist public support in dealing with this very difficult ‘anti-social’ health problem. Even a name and shame policy could be employed. At the heart of the issue is the selfishness or self-centredness of dog owners to allow their dogs to foul. This attitude offends the majority. Therefore  the minority is in a sense controlling the majority. The tail is wagging the dog. This must be challeneged. All dog trainers know if you are training a dog that you cannot allow it to be the pack leader or you have a recipe for an ill-disciplined pet.  Similarly, there needs to be a top-down clamp down, but co-ordinated with a ‘bottom-up movement’ of the general public and concerned agencies to change attitude. Schools, local organisations, health groups etc can all be used to reach out in a campaign to stop dog fouling. Down News is happy to support a campaign to stop this. We need to change attitudes. The carrot and the stick both need to be used in tandem. Prevention is better than cure. Dogs running the street could be put in the Council dog pound more rigorously and their owners held responsiible  for significant costs which could also be a deterrent. The majority are in support. That is a huge resource the Council could utilise creatively to get dog owners to ‘take the lead.’ After the election hopefully Councillors may address this issue again in the Environment Committee. They will then have time to turn the tide of dog fouling in our District. They may have to make some tough, creative and unprecedented decisions leading the way  in a Northern Ireland-wide  issue. Log on to Jim Masson at the Down  News Facebook: Become a Friend, and tell your Friends. What would you do to stop this fouling epidemic on our streets and public places? http://www.facebook.com/downnews Go to Jim Masson.]]>