Rother Council Dog Control Order

Signatures 304 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 7 › »

1. 1
   Name: Mandy Dumont on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: N. Park on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments: I am sick of this nanny state. Rother council need to modify their proposals, particularly in regard to the number of dogs allowed. The majority of people with more than 3 dogs are responsible dog owners who work or compete with their dogs.

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: J. Adams on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments: Where will it end

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Alison McGowan on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments: Fully agree and as a resident of Bexhill I feel very poorly served by my councillors. Please don't persecute dogs and their owners in general as this new law will probably ignored by the same people that ignored the old ones. There are a lot of responsible owners out there.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: T A BETTS on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments: Without seeing the restricted areas I feel the proposed restrictions could be unduly severe. Three dogs is too small a number. Dogs under proper control are no problem at all.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Michael Pulsford on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments: This proposal penalises responsible dog owners because of the actions of the irresponsible.

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Gilli Sayer on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Elaine Norris on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Kate Barratt on Jan 27, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: David Cowderoy on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Jane Thorn on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments: Our two dogs love off lead time at the beach. This ban would destroy what is a favourite whole family outing.

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: C Rosendale on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Simon Chandler on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Louise Taylor on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Sue Seekings on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Nelson Gilbert on Jan 27, 2007

    Comments: Please review the content of this proposal as per the suggestions of this petition.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: I do feel that Rother have not looked in depth at this issue and should consult with local dog clubs/groups and other interested parties before introducing any legislation. I do believe that many of the issues are exacerbated by 'professional' dog walkers and these are the people that councils should be cracking down on. Spot checks on their insurance cover/tax returns etc will indeed reduce the number of dogs walked at once including number off lead as I do not believe that there is one insurance company which will insure more than 2/3 dogs being walked as an occupation off lead at once. Walking dogs and enjoying it is a good way of acquiring the necessary exercise which helps towards healthy body and mind. I do believe blanket laws are not helpful and furthermore work towards a dictatorship/fascist state - I apologise for being so strong here!

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Wendy Short on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Cllr David Betts on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: As an active participant in local government I regard this proposed order as dangerously excessive and an example of the 'nanny' state' at its worst. This sort of 'big brother' attitude is unacceptable in and civilised society.

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Rebecca Thomas on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: SHARON ELDRIDGE on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Claire Alderson on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: This will discriminate against responsible dog owners and do nothing to education, train or control those who don't train their "one dog" or do no clear up after their "one dog". People should be able to walk with thier dogs in freedom in a responsible way - if they can get their dogs to do instant downs and recall let them!

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: L Grinham on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Joanne Mallion on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Karen Fuller on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Nicky Taylor on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Liz McNeil Grist on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Su Izod on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Liz Muir on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Simon Park on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Margaret Pennington on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Nina Houslay on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: Absolute FARCE - if only the resources were put into policing the laws we already have, this wouldn't be needed. It is discriminatory, and against a dog owners human right to impose these restrictions on innocent pet owners.

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Gina on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Beth Menzies on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: Please reconsider this rushed and ill-considered piece of regulation.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: M Shepherd on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: Surely this conflicts with the New Animal Welfare Act I would fully support people having to clear up after dogs, and dogs being onlead near roads but as we holiday on the UK at least 4 times a year with our dogs we would avoid this area completely. Target the minority of irresponsible owners , don't penalise responsible ones

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Michael Ede on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: Instead of creating more and more rules, why not enforce the legislation that is already in place

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Victoria Clare on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: There is a lot less danger from dogs than there are from cars but you are not doing anything about the amount of people who break the law with cars. There are many ways of breaking the law with cars, on the phone, speeding, etc but they are allowed to carry on killing people, while responsible dog owners are penalised for the idiots who don't know how to care and train their dogs. It would be much better and safer, for all dogs to be trained.

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Alexis Wilson on Jan 28, 2007

    Comments: Ridiculous proposal!

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Ann Howkins on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments: This is a totally unworkable, badly thought out and very restrictive piece of legislation. It will only penalise the law abiding and be ignored by the people who need to be controlled.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Sue Julian on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: CHRISTINE MARGARET JACKSON on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments: Way over the top.

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Lorna Goodban on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments: Don't penalise everyone for the bad behaviour by a few.

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Sue Heard on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments: I am am multi dog owner and frequently walk in the rother region! I am in full agreement of clearing up after my dogs and of dogs being kept on lead in and around childrens play areas. Maybe a restrictions (dogs on leads!) on Leisure and sports fields when they are in use which is usually at weekends only. These fields are rarely during week days.

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: ALISON BRELSFORD on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Evan France on Jan 29, 2007

    Comments: The Rother consultation document is very limited in scope and does not give opportunity to discuss the principles of the order. To restrict dogs running off the lead to a few areas will be detrimental to the animals' health and could cause too many over-excited dogs in one area, causing a greater risk to public safety.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 7 › »