I SUGGEST it s less of a case of my barking up the wrong tree but more of a case of your reporter being led by the nose ( Dog control orders back on the council agenda, June 6). The reason the decision was deferred was because Mr Malcolm Sharp had no
I SUGGEST it's less of a case of my "barking up the wrong tree" but more of a case of your reporter being "led by the nose" ("Dog control orders back on the council agenda," June 6).
The reason the decision was deferred was because Mr Malcolm Sharp had not familiarised himself with the legal framework of the dog control orders.
My points at the meeting were that the council did not have to instigate all of the orders available to them, and, indeed chose not to use the order restricting the number of dogs that can be exercised by an individual. The report did not make clear exactly which areas would be covered by the dogs-on-leads order and, although I acknowledge that some of the areas were previously covered under existing byelaws, the public were not necessarily aware of these, nor were they actively enforced.
I am disappointed that the council should seek to restrict the freedom of residents to use and enjoy our public open spaces. There is already national legislation requiring owners to keep dogs on leads on the public highway, not to mention the Dangerous Dogs Act, which requires certain breeds to be muzzled.
Must we keep legislating for everything and not be allowed to exercise common sense? We already have "Smoke-free implementation officers" - will we now be paying for "Keep-dogs-on-leads implementation officers"?
PAULA LONGFORD, Avenue Rd, St Neots