Dogs on the playing field

What a fantastic service AudlemOnline provides, and what an amazing village to live in, with so much going on and so much work in the general interest by volunteers.

However, I'd like to respond to recent AudlemOnline news articles, chatbox opinion pieces and the news of the Parish Council signs relating to dogs on the playing fields.

I'd like to ask whether anyone involved in instigating/delivering these signs can confirm/answer the following:

• 1. How many people in the local area actually have dogs/what percentage of the populace?
• 2. How many of those people are active/mobile enough to exercise the dogs versus the dogs exercising themselves via running round the only open public field in the vicinity?
• 3. I'm all right Jack as I can walk the canals, lanes etc, but not everyone can, therefore it's important for the old and immobile to be able to exercise dogs safely. As dogs are an important and proven deterrent to crime / help people feel more secure in under-policed rural areas, I wonder if due and democratic consideration has been given to this issue versus over emotive hyperbole – i.e. AudlemOnline articles referring to 'dog menace*'? Is a bit of dog poop really that menacing?
• 4. Do we have a holistic, user centric, and objective quantifiable approach to this issue? i.e. has anyone stood with clipboard and pen counting the total number of people exercising dogs on the field, total number of kids running round, total number of people chasing a football etc?
• 5. Has the response to this issue been led by the opinionated minority? Is there a silent majority of dog exercisers who aren't included in this debate?
• 6. How does the Parish council know that the majority of its residents/tax payers are in favour of the dog signs?
• 7. Is this an 'excrement only' issue or an 'aggressive threatening dogs AND excrement issue'?

There are those who would be threatened by 22 charged up highly svelte and conditioned athletes playing the golden game on a Sunday morning, but that doesn't mean they need to be banned.

This is a public field, and as such needs to meet the needs of the local population. I may choose not to take my kids to the play park while Sunday league football is ongoing due to the usual aggression and swearing that comes with Sunday league football, but I haven't tried to ban that, as I understand that there is a need for that activity, and as such there is a balance between the opportunities and rights of one group over another. (Plus I'm only jealous as my footballing days are long gone!).

Dog poop is unpleasant, smelly, and unnecessary on the playing field for sure, but what of the lanes often covered in horse or cow poop: do we next ban tractors from the lanes or horses?

I'd like to feel reassured that there is a democratic, holistic approach to this issue of dog poop, and not just a knee jerk to complaints from the vocal or the mighty alone?
Via such free survey tools as www.surveymonkey.com the opportunity for engagement and democracy are easily available, and would give a sounder footing than Daily Mail style ranting driving the agenda would it not?
All the best
Reecy

*AudlemOnline has used the phrase 'dog menace' as we are told the field has to be cleared of dog poo before matches while lots of children also train for football on the field. Dog poo is both unpleasant and can be potentially dangerous.

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.