A thoughtful local response to the dog debate

The Martins are residents of Audlem who have responded in detail to the consultation by Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council on the Dog Control Orders. They are also narrowboat owners who cruise the UK extensively and moor in Audlem, are dog owners and daily users of towpaths in the C&NBC area to walk their dog. This is what they have said (which we have published in some detail as the arguments will be of interest to many):

"We are in favour of making it an offence for owners to not clear up after their dogs in all areas covered by the Order and expect C&NBC to support this by installing, and regularly collecting from, waste bins in all areas in which the Order applies (not just the ones convenient to a road). We also expect C&NBC to provide and keep stocked, clean waste bags from dispensers on the waste bins: dog owners then have no excuse for not clearing up. Many river/canal paths in the UK now have this facility provided by the council."

"We are in favour of Dog Exclusion proposals – the maximum number of dogs controlled by an individual should be 4, not 6. A single person cannot properly control 6 dogs, even if they are small. We are in favour of the proposed penalty system and in favour of the Dogs on Lead proposal apart from Common Land and British Waterways land inclusion. The Common Land proposal seems too generalised and the Dogs on Lead proposal in these areas is probably unnecessary, unreasonable & unenforceable. By definition, most of them are in rural locations, so rarely visited by your 6 wardens. An unenforceable law is a bad law, by definition, no matter how good the intent behind it."

"We are strongly against the proposal to include British Waterways land in the Dogs on Lead proposal because the proposed Order is particularly unfair to dog-owning users of the towpath. British Waterways are charged with managing the national canal system for the benefit of all users (boaters, anglers, walkers, cyclists etc). The Order would put unreasonable restrictions on towpath users with dogs, which are not found anywhere else in the UK."

"The proposed Order is totally unenforceable. We estimate there are around 17 miles of towpath in the C&NBC area, mostly rural. The thought that visiting boaters using the Coole Pilate picnic area will observe the Order is laughable! With 6 wardens to police it (amongst many other jobs), it will be disregarded (and laughed at) by the vast majority of towpath users. Unenforceable law is bad law."

"We are not clear on whose authority C&NBC can include British Waterways land in the proposal. There is nothing in BW bye-laws to do with dog control and we are not aware of any other lengths of towpath in the UK that have such control orders. You will make the area appear very unfriendly to many walkers, boat owners & holidaymakers."

"We understand that a large proportion of casual users of the towpaths are indeed dog walkers. On towpaths (as opposed to formal communal recreation areas like parks where children play) it should be the owner's responsibility to decide if they need a lead to keep a dog under control. We do accept, however, that dogs should be under control. Dogs kept on a lead on the towpath will be forced to defecate in the area where people walk. If owners choose to not clear up (and some won't), the problem is then probably worse than before!"

"Years of experience shows that dogs forced to be on a lead in a confined space (ie the towpath corridor) are more likely to be aggravational, than if they can flee the perceived danger of another dog. There is then the increased risk of innocent bystanders being caught in the middle of a dog-fight. There is also a significantly increased safety risk to boaters who have to get on/off boats with a dog on a lead. Operating locks & lift bridges is virtually impossible with a dog on a lead."

"The order does nothing to promote responsible dog ownership by towpath users. It is all "stick", and no "carrot" and is a "sledgehammer" response to a relatively small problem on the towpaths in the C&NBC area. Try walking the towpaths in Middlewich & Macclesfield and you see what a real problem is! The proposed order will send out a message of "dogs not welcome in the CNBC area" to all towpath users, with a consequent effect on tourism in areas like Audlem, Nantwich & Wrenbury."

"There is, however, a workable compromise. Make lengths of towpath in close proximity to a village/town (ie with waste bins provided) subject to the Dogs on Lead Order. Suitable signage would make it clear to dog owning towpath users (regulars & visitors) of their responsibilities. We can only see this being appropriate in the centre of Audlem, on the embankment near the aqueduct at Nantwich, and at the lift bridge at Wrenbury.

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.