Loading... Free Web Hosting - Watch Free Movies Online - Watch Free TV Online - Free Domain Hosting Video Sharing Image Hosting Oil prices are rising daily. Use Local Gas Prices to patronize only the most affordable gas stations near you.

What a mess!
Destroy the lot of them THREE cheers for last week's Advertiser naming and shaming dog fouling. If these dog owners cannot be bothered to pick up mess then they should be prosecuted. The problem is there are not enough prosecutions to get the message across to these irresponsible dog owners. I often see people walking not one, but three or four dogs at a time, creating more mess and pollution in Tameside's parks and countryside. Just why these people want so many dogs is beyond comprehension and how they can afford to feed them in a recession is a mystery. It seems that people think more of dogs, than humans these days. Dogs not only pollute the environment but they invade our rights to a peaceful environment under the Human Rights Act, by constant barking day and night If I had my way I'd destroy the lot of them. DAVID LAWSON Worth's Lane, Haughton Green
	Penalise horse owners, too THERE has been much in the media lately regarding the fouling of footpaths by dogs and the penalties faced by their owners if the mess is not cleared up. I would like to know if the same penalties apply to the owners of horses, and if not, why not? I regularly travel from Hyde to Denton along Manchester Road and, without exception, a stretch of this road is always strewn with horse manure along the footpath and the road. The riders of these horses obviously trot off into the distance either unaware or unconcerned about the mess their animals are leaving behind, mess which car drivers and pedestrians must then wade through. If the penalties do not apply to horse owners for whatever reason, then I suggest the animals be kept off the roads and should instead use bridle paths and fields where they belong. That way, only they and their owners need navigate the mess. P PARKINSON Droyslden [Jun18,09]
Highway code bans riding on pavement IF Mrs Parkinson is suffering from horse manure on her pavements then she has my sympathy - this was not clear to me from her initial letter. If she has not already done so, I would suggest that she approach the riding school or stable and point out to them that riding on the pavement is prohibited under the Highway Code, Rule 54. If this does not work she might consider contacting the police and the council, and possibly collecting video evidence to support her case. However, it is difficult to be fully sympathetic when she uses the example of the penny farthing - these were replaced by the 'modern'. (1885) 'safety bicycle', still in regular use today even though many of us have moved over to cars. Should we ban these too? I think not. We all have the right to use those means of transport that suit us best and have a responsibility to be courteous in that usage. Patience, persistance and tolerance would serve Mrs Parkinson better than penmanship in this column. ANDREW GLADWELL Ashton [Jul23,09]
Big difference between manure and muck I FEEL I must take isssue with your correspondent P Parkinson of Droylsden regarding the matter of horse manure and dog dirt. There is a very great deal of difference between the two. I would happily recover any horse muck from the vicinity of my home and immediately dig it into my garden borders and rose bushes.I would also put it on my rhubarb although most people prefer custard! It has an odour of course, but a farmyard organic one which I prefer to the putrid, gut-wretching stench of dog dirt on the soles of one's shoes and trodden unwittingly into one's home carpeting or car mats. If dogs - and cats for that matter - could be persuaded to eat grass and hay then the problem might not be as pressing. As for his suggestion that drivers and pedestrians have. to 'wade' through the horse manure, I can only surmise that the horses on Manchester Road must have been bred by the Trojans! R SMITH Dukinfleld	Lesson from animal world DEAR me, David Lawson - you are an angry man! You're entitled to an opinion, but as an ammal lover and responsible dog keeper your final line angered me so much I couldn't let it pass. Firstly dogs are not responsible for their mess, it's actually the humans associated with them, like the owners who fail to pick up during walks, or worse, tip them out the door in the morning for the rest of the day without caring what happens to them. I don't suppose when you made your parting shot you stopped to consider all the fantastic dogs that do such worthwhile work assisting the human race? If you consider the damage the human race inflicts on one another daily and the detritus left behind for others to clear up, I think it's obvious we could take a lesson from the creatures of the animal kingdom and not the other way around. JANET HURST Newton
Fine mess I AGREE with everything P Parkinson says. I can't understand why dog owners have to pay a fine if their dog make a mess when a horse makes much more mess than a dog and the owners get away with it. June Jones Armadale Road Dukinfield
No disease fears IN response to the letter last week from P Parkinson about horse owners sticking to bridle paths, I along with most others I am sure, would love to. Unfortunately now, due to M60 and new builds etc, we are not able to reach them without using public roads. Just yesterday my daughter and myself were out on our way to a bridle path at Shepley when a woman driving a silver car hit the back of my horse with her wing mirror and didn't even stop to see if we were OK or apologise. I would also like to point out that many of the bridle paths have now been blocked by concrete boulders due to mini motorbikes and quads using them. The difference between dog dirt and horse dirt is that horse muck causes no diseases. I have dogs and wouldn't dream of leaving their mess on the ground, always carrying poop bags. This is certainly not the case for many people. Some even pick it up in bags then throw the bags in the bushes. M O'ROURKE Audenshaw	Penalise cars, not horses I WRITE in response to P Parkinson's letter regarding horse manure left on roads and footpaths, which apparently motorists have to 'wade through'. Unlike dog mess, which contains harmfil diseases and toxins, horse manure is 100 per cent biodegradable. In the present climate, where people are encouraged to consider the negative effects of global warming, It is perhaps not horses that should be penalised but rather the many more people who have become far too reliant on using their cars. P Parkinson also states that horse riders should stick to bridle paths and fields 'where they belong'. Enlightening, perhaps for P Parkinson to learn that horses were present on roads long before cars were invented. Admittedly I am sure that some horse riders would dearly love to ride solely on bridle paths. However this is both impractical and at times impossible. The only access onto bridle paths for many riders is via very often busy main roads. While I agree with P Parkinson that horses should not be ridden on footpaths it is unfortunately sometimes a necessity.This is due to the number of inconsiderate motorists who endanger not only themselves but also the lives of riders and their horses by driving in a dangerous and erratic manner. I am a horse rider myself and I.am at all times responsible and courteous to other road users when riding on the road. It would be greatly appreciated if all would behave likewise J BOULT [July 2,09]
Hard-working dogs have important jobs IN reply to David Lawson, yes I agree dog owners should be fined for not picking up their dog's mess. In defence of our four-legged friends I have to make a couple of points. Would he be the one to inform all blind and disabled people that their only way of help would he destroyed? The police and armed forces whose dogs put their lives on the line every day for humans, will he inform them that he wants their dogs destroyed? What would he replace these hard-working dogs with? Also, would he have horses, cats, cows, pigs etc destroyed as they also pollute the environment.What business is it of his how people spend their money? Does he own a car which also pollutes the environment? ANGELA COLE Windsor Road	IN response to David Lawson's anti-dog rant last week, I have to agree I do think more of my dog than of some humans and of that one in particular Hopefully he will never get his way and 'destroy the lot of them.' Would he also like to destroy guide dogs, police dogs, sniffer dogs and mountain rescue dogs or is it just the family pets? Dogs make loyal companions, good burglar alarms and help keep you active by walking them. Their only crime is that some of their owners don't clean up after them. Hardly the dog's fault, is it? Dogs are never guilty of the other human crimes committed on a daily basis in Tameside that fill these pages every week. And if people want three or four dogs and are prepared to pay to feed them, that's their choice. L EVANS Danby Road Hyde
Make crime a higher priority than fouling I WAS much dismayed to read David Lawson's letter moaning about dogs and that people had been forced to lift excrement with £20 notes and socks. The politically correct brigade are the ones who seem to have got their priorities wrong. While all the moaning about dog and horse fouling is going on, a young woman was beaten and kicked on our street and the police have done nothing but issue a number. Perhaps if the types of people who are capable of kicking a woman in the street were persecuted as much as dog owners are, then it would not happen. I think perhaps woman-beating should be a higher priority than what a dog leaves behind and if anyone needs destroying it is those people who cannot keep their fists and feet to themelves. D BORRELL Bamford Grove  Ashton	A BIG thank you to the Advertiser for highligting the dog fouling court case on the front page. To those who suffer from this anti-social problem by the minority it's a very serious subject. I would bet the vast majority of communities would be delighted that authorities are dealing with this problem. The people who allow their dogs to foul areas know what they are doing so they should not expect any sympathy when caught and made to pay the penalty. The fixed penalty is a good way of dealing with the offence. Zero tolerance is our way of dealing with the offence and we are doing the same with litter.It works and well over 500 fixed penalty notices have been issued so far by our environmental staff. Councillor JOHN TAYLOR Jubilee Ave Dukinfield
IN  In response to David Lawson's letter in the Advertiser (18 June), we have four dogs in our family and always clean up our dogs mess. As for destroying all dogs, without dogs for company most of us humans would he sad and lonely, especially the elderly who rely on them for companionship. With all the crime the country has to put up with, it's most humans that need destroying not our four-legged friends. K PLATT Stalybridge [JUN25,09] Dear ed, It was with some irony that I read the letter from S Hatton [Sep17] asking for dogs to be given their own zones and essentially for the council to use carrots not sticks with dog owners. I thought perhaps that "S Hatton" was a pseudonym, and that perhaps if read quickly the authors name becomes a remark on what that letter did to council policy.	Horses don't bring same problem P PARKINSON asked why horse owners are not compelled to pick up after their animals as dog owners are. As one who owns neither and holds no dislike for either, can I suggest the probable reasons are twofold: disease and inconvenience. Canine faeces carry the round worm toxocara canis which can lead to uveitis, causing partial or total blindness or liver problems when ingested. I am unable to find evidence of similar problems with horse faeces. Also, canine faeces can be found on the pavement where they are very much more likely to be trodden in. Horses, on the other hand, create their mess on the road where people are less likely to tread in it. The sheer size of the droppings makes them much easier to spot and the smell is far less. I do take issue with P Parkinson's suggestion that horses should not he permitted on the highway - they have been part of the transport infrastructure for far longer than the car and have a very much lower impact upon the environment. Finally, horses are not left to walk themselves. Too often I see dogs roaming free on my estate, fouling where they like and causing danger to traffic. ANDREW GLADWELL Broadoak Estate Ashton
Give dogs own zones to stop fouling problems
I understand the need to stop dog fouling, as a responsible dog owner who cleans up after her dogs, I cannot help feel that those of us who should be commended are to be punished (Advertiser, 10 September). Taking away areas where people can safely exercise their dogs can also have an effect on the dogs. Fields allow dogs that important free run that keeps them mentally and physically healthy. I walk our pavements twice daily to get to bridleways/nature reserves and have had dogs' pads cut from the glass smashed all over the place. Why not give dog owners a place that's safe  and secure for dogs only, somewhere we can acceptably exercise our dogs in a way that helps keep them healthy and safe? When you promote an  area where dogs are accepted, people will use it, it will benefit all concerned. The young people of Tameside have their own places and clubs for sport and socialising. In some cases these areas are abused, it would be an infringement on their rights should you ban them due to foul language, and underage drinking! S Hatton Denton [Sep 17,09]
Council policy on fining for dog excrement: Dear Ed, I was interested to read Cllr Fitzpatrick's comments in your article "Getting tougher on dog fouling". I would like to relate an incident that is the consequence of the council's fascist attitude to dog owners. On Thursday 27th Aug, a shell-suited,short-haired man came to my door and suggested that my dog had been the source of mess left near his house. He suggested that if he saw it happen again I would be bodily harmed. As a matter of fact my dog has not been out of the house,save for a car journey and a short jaunt to the post box; all of her mess is currently in an Asda carrier bag in the back garden going mouldy. I suspect the bin men are subject to an even higher risk from that. Because of the fear and intimidation caused by the simple-minded attitude to dog mess,my dog is now overweight and needs her toenails cutting. I am afraid to walk my dog in case someone attacks me or acts as a big brother and reports me - creating a fine that I cannot afford anyway. Punitive measures only create resentment and it is no wonder one ends up with school kids making pipe bombs. As I reported in a previous letter,whilst the council panicked about dog mess - real criminals were beating people up in our streets. I presume the council does not condone people going to people's doors and threatening them with violence,but this is one result of their policy. The policy of fining is a simple and limited way for the council to extract even more tolls out of taxpayers. The policy leads to people dumping carrier bags of waste out in the open,where the normal processes of degrading by rain and slugs cannot be carried out. I have even seen it hanging in trees. The idea that toxicaria is a problem is absurd.If it was a potent risk then requiring people to lift it only increases the risk. I suspect more people have died of adult cot death than have been blinded by toxicaria. The fact is dog mess represents a "yeeuk" factor and it is this which leads people to chastise dog owners. For millennia animals have left their waste behind and nature as deigned to clean it up,we are only making matters worse. A recent issue of the METRO carried these comments in its Metro Cosm column: GOOD DEED: Carrots are better than sticks for building human cooperation according to research 'Positive interpersonal interactions' inspire contributions to the common good, US experts said. Activities include volunteering on a school board or helping clean a community. As a member of Tameside's Green Interest Group and Friends of Stamford Park - I was happy to hear one of our members mention that Tameside Council 'ought to use less sticks and more carrots'. Perhaps,if a place was set aside for the use of dog owners to use,much as it is outside the vets opposite the Prince of Orange,this would be more of a carrot. Maybe the waste could be recycled into a fuel - it has been done with other creatures. But I guess it is because it would cost the council money, rather than raking it in by chastising dog owners,that they choose to use sticks instead of carrots - don't expect my cooperation then.
We're not anti-dog, just anti-dirt IN response to the 'Give dogs own zones to stop fouling' letter (Advertiser, 17 September). First of all I would like to thank the author for being one of the vast majority of responsible dog owners we have in Tameside. Most people do clear up after their dog and if it wasn't for people such as the author, dog fouling in the borough would be a lot worse than it is at present. And that's the issue we a face, not all owners act in such a responsible and thoughtful manner and it's because of this that we have had to act to introduce the dog control orders in the first place. Excluding dogs from certain areas, such as children's play areas and cemeteraries, I am sure, evervone will agree is not a bad thing. And I don't just mean based on health grounds but, as in the case of cemeteries, out of respect for the place. That is why we have made sure there are still plenty of areas where dogs can run off the lead, as long as their owners act responsibly. I want to make it perfectly clear that this council is not anti-dog, but it is anti those dog owners who allow their animals to foul the area, leaving the mess for others to clean up. It's just a shame that the minority of dog owners who continue to refuse to clean up after their animals are having such a negative impact on the rest of us. Cllr JIM FITZPATRICK Executive member for district assemblies
Thoughtless dog owners are building a mountain of mess Taking my dog for his morning walk I came across one pile of dog mess. On the same route the next day what do I find? Another pile next to the one from the day before. This is set to go on and on until there is a mountain of the stuff. Don't the thoughtless owners of these dogs realise that if they are caught it's a £1000 fine? It doesn't take a minute to scoop it up and put it in the bin. That's what I always do and I a'm 73 years old. There are a lot of children who pass along this road and it's not very pleasant for them if they accidentally step in the mess. I wonder how these owners would like it if somebody left some on their doorstep? Perhaps then they would be a bit more considerate and think about public hygiene. M Darwent Cheetham Hill Road Dukinfield [Nov 5 2009]	I wonder what Mrs Darwent means by "thoughtless". I have thought a great deal about it and decided that the Earth had plenty of dinosaurs on it all leaving waste behind before pedantic human beings and their backward priorities came along. It did not seem to do the dinosaurs much harm - perhaps Mrs D thinks they died out because they never cleaned up after themselves! Thinking about it leads to the idea that dogs have been around for a very long time and it is only the "disgust" factor of people that leads to them moaning about something which is perfectly natural - all other animals leave waste behind which nature clears up itself. Dogmess certainly should not be a criminal offence whilst people are being mugged and the perpetrators get off scott free.

www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk

Camera eye on careless dog owners I WANT to express my deep concern over dogs fouling pavements and public footpaths in the Godley area. I know it's not the dogs' fault, it's their owners. It makes me angry to see owners walking their dogs, letting them off the lend and ignoring where the dogs are fouling, they are not clearing it up. My children and their friends, along with many approaching Godley school, have accidentally stood in this dog mess. When we had the bad snow ho attempt at all was made to clean up any dog msss. It is so much easier to pick up in snow, I know, I have a dog, and clear up after him. I am also troubled that dogs are fouling the school playing field. I spoke to Tameside Council, who said they would put up signs and dog bins. People don't seem to bother with pride in the area in which they live. They carry on regardless because it's not them standing in it, they are too lazy to pick it up and put it in the bin when they get home. If you can't clear up after your dog, you shouldn't be allowed to keep one. The council says on its website that if owners let their dog foul the pavement or walkways they can be  fined £1,000. Who actually polices this? I'm sure nothing is done, walk round Godley you will soon see. People just won't take responsibility for their actions and can manage to wheedle their way out of things. Be warned dog walkers of Godley I am watching you, I am also carrying a camera and I will,if needs be, take photos of you and your fouling dogs. A COLBOURNE

Dear Ed, I see the dogmess Nazi's are out in force again. A Colbourne is now carrying a camera to take pictures of dog mess. What a sad life A Colbourne must have that spying on dog excretia holds some attraction. When was it that people became so politically correct that they now become big brother spies like communist Russia? The idea of fining everything that is found repugnant doesn't work. I have had someone come to my house and verbally abuse me, because that person thought I was to blame,for mess outside his house. My dog had not been outside our own street for fear of an A Colbourne clone with a camera. Perhaps we should solve our problem using David Lawson's solution and "Destroy the lot of them"? Maybe D Lawson and A Colbourne can have a special swastika-like logo provided by the council so we know who are the Dogme-SS. The risks from excrement are overrated - all that happens from lifting it is it ends up in plastic bags outside where it does not decay - I've seen this several times and in one case - hung in a tree - hardly the hygiene that the dog-haters want. Stop messing with nature and let the animals that exist to dispose of what is left behind deal with it - if need be - in a specially allocated place - and stop chastising dog-owners with fines and spying. For those who wish to keep tabs on this issue - I have collated all the letters about it - at http://leebor2.741.com/dogmess.html - you can bet A Colbourne's rant will be appended.

Health hazards of dog dirt aren't overrated

I REPLY to DL Borrell's letter in the Advertiser and state 'I will not calm down about dirt'. It's not messing with nature picking up after your dog, it's having consideration for others who walk on the pavement. My primary concern is the fact that dog owners are letting their dogs foul the pavement, not an allocated dog area, but the actual pavements and school playing field. When my children, age three and six, walk to school and nursery; we have to dodge it, if we are lucky we can get to school without stepping in it. I can only assume that Hazelhurst is not awash with dog excrement, as it seems to double overnight in Godley The risks from excrement are not overrated. Why would Tameside Council put a fine of £1,000 up for not clearing up dog mess? To quote the council and numerous other sites when you type in 'toxocara canis' -roundworm eggs are found in dog mess, which can easily be picked up by young children. This causes stomach upsets, sore throats, asthma and in rare cases blindness. The eggs can remain active in the soil for many years, long after the dog mess has weathered away Yes, I too have seen dog mess in a bag hung from a tree, obviously not the ideal place, but a responsible dog owner would pick it up, bag it, and take it home to put in the bin, not leave it for someone else to clear. DL Borrell is in a tiny minority as all the parents that I have spoken to at school and residents of Godley who are clearing up other people's dog mess from outside their front doors, are fed up. Basically it is a health hazard. There is just no need for it, and until something is done about it, yes I will continue to walk the streets with my camera and if someone is fined £1,000, I'm sure they won't do it again. ANDREA COLBOURNE. Mess building up in Stamford Park thanks to council policy. Godley Tameside does seem to have a problem with dog fouling,but I believe it is caused by a minority rogue element among the areas dog owners. I would like to appeal to all dog owners to be more responsible about how they allow their pets to toilet. I have just moved from Pudsey in Yorkshire and was surprised and embarassed at the amount of dog dirt littering the streets of Stalybridge. Dan Jackson Cheetham Hill Road, Stalybridge We're no worse After seeing a comment by Dan Jackson in last week's paper,I have got to say I disagree as a dog owner myself. A lot of other dog owners don't want the blame for the vast majority of dog foul. I have been to Pudsey to visit family earlier this month and there is little difference between Tameside and Pudsey. Nathan Nolan & Luke Shepherd Bank Road Carrbrook

Lighten up on dog rules I AM glad that your correspondents have proven once and for all that Tameside Council, contrary to what Cllr Fitzpatrick maintains, is anti-dog. As I use King George fields on my route home I am aware that many dog-owners exercise their pets. What little mess there is is not much thanks to the very small bin provided. Seeing as Tameside Council says itself that 12 tonnes of muck is produced each day then so few bins will necessarily result in bags strewn everywhere and no chance for the contents to rot. As Jo Siemienoski said, forcing dogs to be on a lead solves nothing and only proves that the council does not have a solution but merely provides punitive measures against owners rather than constructive incentives like allocated dog-runs. Thanks to the council's draconian anti-dog philosopy my dog is now in serious bad health due to lack of exercise from fear of the big brother photographers who have nothing better to do than chastise dog-owners. Please can the council have a constructive solution that does not make lepers out of dog-owners and actually solves the problem rather than just sealing the problem in a plastic bag, which largely only makes matters worse. DL BORRELL Bamford Grove Hazelhurst I live near the field off Groby Road, Audenshaw. We have no dog bins and people are now picking up, but are then throwing the bags on the floor. They are all over the field and the path onto it. Come on Tameside Council, please provide bins. J GILL Audenshaw

No need for special bins IN reply to last week's letter 'More bins needed for dog walkers' I just wanted to say that Tameside Council is phasing out bins specially designed for dog waste. That is why we suggest that responsible dog owners either put their waste in a normal bin or take it home. Incidentally this is the same advice Oldham Council gives on its website. The reason we don't want any specifically designated dog waste bins is because it does cost a great deal of council tax payers' money to remove. A bin which only contains dog waste is classed as clinical waste and costs much more to remove than dog waste put in a normal bin. Most Greater Manchester councils have now adopted this policy as a more cost-effective way of disposing of dog waste and I would hope it's a policy most of our residents would support. Cllr JIM FITZPATRICK [Advertiser 20May 2010]

As a result of my letter to the Advertiser I received a phone call from someone in Droylsden who told me that councillors had been given a 600 name petition which threatened not to vote labour if they kept up their anti-dog policies in that area - the councillors backed down.

Leading question over playing field's mess...

I HAVE recently heard that dogs wrn have to now be walked on their leads on King George's playing fields to prevent fouling. Why has no one ever told me that putting a lead on a dog can miraculously stop bowel movements and I wonder if all dogs owners know this? As a former walker of a dog on said field, I can honestly say that humans make the most mess on this park, leaving their burger wrappers, polystyrene cups and plastic bottles all over the grass while watching their kids play football. Maybe they should be put on a lead and this might miraculously stop too?
JEMMA FIELDING
Kingsley Close
Ashton

Give us more dog patrols

AFTER reading the letter about more bins needed for dog walkers, here in Droylsden we would love to see some bins full stop. We would really appreciate seeing at least a bin on each end of the walkthrough path of Moorside Street to the Snipe. Some of us responsible dog owners do pick up our dog's dirt and take it home with us to dispose of, whereas some pick up after their dog then throw it on the trees or on the grass. I know some dog owners don't like to carry the dirt around with them especially on long walks, but at the end of the day it is the owners' responsibility and not the dogs' fault.

Then we have the stargazer owners who can't be bothered even looking, or should I say pretend not to know when their dog is doing one. All these irresponsible people wouldn't like this dog dirt in their garden and it really does mount up. The new path has attracted many family walkers, bike rides and children playing on the grassed area. It isn't very nice if children fall in dog dirt, nor for wheels of bikes, and the patrollers never seem to be around. Why doesn't Tameside Council just employ dog fouling  officers,without uniform,as I feel  that dog fouling is more offensive than throwing cigarette ends on the floor and yet people are getting heavy fines for that.
K DOLMOR
Droylsden

A tight leash for dog owners

by KateWeir DOGS have been banned from dozens of green spaces in Tameside and must be kept on short leads in other open areas. The tough new rules are part of dog control orders brought in by Tameside Council to tackle dog fouling. Anyone who breaks the rules faces a fine of up to £1,000. Since the start of the month, dogs are now banned from all cemeteries and school playing fields and must be kept on leads of no more than two metres in length in dozens of parks and open spaces. Even more areas require a dog owner to put their dog on a short lead if asked to by a patroller. Among the areas affected are Hyde Park, Cedar Park in Ashton and the southern part of Stamford Park in Stalybridge. In all these areas and many more dogs must be kept on leads of no more than 6ft 6ins  - or two metres - length at all time.The popular extendable-type leads are normally betweeen five and eight metres long. A report from the council states: "One reason for making the order is that where dogs are able to be exercised off leads, it is harder for dog owners to clear up after fouling." The council says that patrollers are new being trained to enforce the rules and that the changes were made following consultations with district assemblies and with the support of the Dogs' Trust. But the new rules have attracted criticism from many responsible dog owners who feel they are being unfairly punished. Dog bans in blitz' on dirt One of those complaining about the dog orders is animal behaviourist Janet Sykes, from Ashton, who trains Coronation Street's Ken Barlow's dog Eccles. Although she agrees with the ban at cemeteries and school fields she thought the rest was disproportionate. "Tameside Council has allowed building on almost every green space around," she said. "For many people places like Hyde Park are the only places they can get to and under the animal.welfare act you have to let your dog off a. lead for exercise. We're not all able to ride about in cars to get to other places, especially the elderly "Dog fouling is a problem in Tameside but the council is allowing it to happen. How many people do you hear of getting fmed for it? It's very few. They only need to go out on a walk with me and you could catch three or four people each time. Dog owners pay their council tax for facilities to be provided - where do we go now? This approach is like using a sledge hammer to turn off a computer - it's totally over the top." To see all the details of the dog control orders, see www.tameside.gov.uk/dogcontrolorders • If you want to have your say on the new dog control orders, or any other article in the Advertiser, write to us at Tameside Advertiser, 1 Scott Place, Manchester, M3 3RN or email tamesideadvertiser@menmedia.co.uk You can also join the debates ouline by logging onto our website www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk Shackled without doing any wrong I READ your latest article about dogs being banned from green areas with great disdain. It seems to me that the council has opted for the easy option and put a blanket ban down, to the detriment of every dog owner, in the hope of catching a relatively small amount of offenders. It is unfair and cruel to expect every dog owner to permanently confine their pet in such a manner.Dogs are a naturally energetic species and they must be able to exercise without the restraint of a lead. Under the current rules it seems the only way a dog will be able to get the exercise it needs would be to take it all the way into the countryside and back, an option which is impossible for many and inconvenient for many more. I agree with Mrs Sykes that very few people actually got fined under the old legislation. For a long time my own household had problems with dog fouling directly outside our property and nothing was ever done about it. Furthermore, I often walked my dog in Cheethams Park and not once saw any enforcement of the old rules on any level whatsoever I am not suggesting a dedicated patroller should be appointed, but any action above nothing would have been preferable. Now, every dog owner in the borough, has been shackled with these bans, when in most cases they have not done a thing wrong. The council has said that it is now training patrollers to help enforce these rules, but my question is, where were these patrollers in the first place? The simple presence of an officer in the borough's parks would no doubt have had a deterrent effect on those dog owners that try to shirk their responsibilities. It is surprising that the council has resorted to the strictest of bans without trying some sort of compromise. Where is the sense in keeping a dog restrained if it has already fouled and their owner has cleared it up? MATTHEW WALKLATE Woodlands Road Stalybridge Dog controls will make parks better for all I APPLAUD the dog controls and bans. I am a keen runner with two small children who loves visiting parks and I feel this legislation is required. Whenever I use Egmont Street park in Mossley to go running, dog owners continually allow their dogs off the leads. Without fail I have to stop due to dogs running at me and barking. The same can be said of Cheethams Park and Stalybridge country park - although Stamford Park seems to be a lot better I find it amazing that all dog owners claim to pick up the dog mess, but anyone walking round any of the parks I have mentioned would not be able to walk more than 10 paces without spotting dirt. If, everyone picks it up, where does it all come from? I am sure that these new restrictions will not make any difference to the good ones anyway. For all the others stop being selfish, control your dogs and pick up the mess. ELLIOT SIMM Stalybridge Brilliant News REGARDING the dog leash by-law in Tameside - it's brilliant .. and about time! But as far as solving the problem of dog fouling goes I don't think it will do much. Irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to foul our borough will carry on doing so, whether their dog is running 50 feet away illegally off its lead, or under close control. The reason I am overjoyed at this decision is that it should eventually make our parks a safer place for both humans and pets alike. For those dog owners who may be upset, can I suggest that if you want your pet dog to bound around uncontrollably then I campaign for 'dog only' I areas to be introduced? That way children won't be in danger. My only concern is how is this is going to be policed? STEPHEN HYNES Droylsden

Orders Introduced NEW dog control orders have been introduced in a step to make Tameside's green and open spaces more enjoyable for all. The orders aim to help clarify where dog owners can take their pets both on and oft,the lead. They have been welcomed by the DogsTrust, which campaigns on behalf of canine welfare, as way of allowing dog owners and the wider community to enjoy the borough's parks and open spaces in harmony. Altogether there are four orders: • A Poop Scoop Order • A Dog Exclusion Order • Area where dogs must be on a lead • Areas where dogs must be put on a lead on request by an authorised officer. Each sign is shown on the opposite page 50 all residents can familiarise themselves with the different wording. Cllr Jim Fitzpatrick, who oversaw the orders' introduction, said: The introduction of these orders is brilliant news and will mean those who own dogs and those who don't, can all enjoy our parks and open spaces in peace. Now everyone will know once and for all what they can and can't do when it comes to taking their dog out. "I believe their introduction is crucial and will be of major benefit for everyone." A DogsTrust spokesperson said: "This is great news and we are very impressed with Tameside's responsible attitude to what many people see as a major problem. With the introduction of these orders, dog owners and the wider community can look forward to co-existing in the borough's green and open spaces in harmony." The poop scoop order will replace the current order under new legislation. There will be no practical changes to the poop scoop order - the person in control of a dog will have to clean up after it. The order does not apply to recognised assistance dogs as set out in the order, or to dogs accompanying registered blind people. The council was required to take this' order under the new legislation, otherwise the new orders would partly repeal the current dog fouling order. The Dog Exclusion Order has designated cemeteries, school grounds, fenced children's play areas, memorial gardens and some fenced sports pitches as areas where dogs will not be allowed. The Dogs on Leads Order, which designates areas where dogs must be on leads, includes some formal parks, sports pitches and other areas where the council does not feel that a dog ban is appropriate but where the council considers that it is appropriate for dogs to be on leads. One reason for making the order is that where dogs are able to be exercised off leads, it is harder for dog owners to clear up any dog fouling - the dog may foul when it is some distance away from the owner which means that the owner may not notice that the dog has fouled or be less inclined to clear up fouling because it would involve walking some distance to find the fouling. Whilst neither of these issues provides a legal excuse for anyone prosecuted for breach of the poop scoop order, the council would prefer to make it easier for dog owners to comply with the law in these areas by requiring dogs to be on leads. In general there are other areas in Tameside within a reasonable distance where dogs can be exercised off leads. For example this restriction is proposed for the part of Stamford Park south of Darnton Road, but not for most of the park north of Darnton Road. The Dogs on Leads on Request Order, designates land where dogs must be placed on a lead no more than 2m long if an authorised officer of the council requests it. This covers most areas not covered by a proposal to ban dogs or required them to be on leads at all times. The orders are being promoted through a campaign to encourage appropriate dog ownership. The campaign is to initially focus on the issue of dog fouling on sports pitches and playing fields where people are discouraged - and in some cases prohibited from exercising their dogs. Dog Control Orders are to be enforced by fixed penalty notices or by prosecution. The maximum fine on a prosecution is £1,000. The amount of the fixed penalty notice has been set at £60, discounted to £50 if people pay within 10 days of issue. The council began enforcing the orders on June 1 and the signs have been erected at each of these sites. [Tameside Citizen June2010]

Fighting fouling

I FELT I had to write in reference to the recent front page article on the council's introduction of dog control orders, because it seems to have triggered a popular misconception that it will lead to our patrollers carrying tape measures with them on duty. The article seemed to concentrate on poking fun at the council as opposed to explaining why the orders are an important introduction. One quote was even printed saying the council did nothing about dog fouling without seeming to understand the irony of the simple fact that that is one of the main reasons the orders have been introduced. Our dog control orders do stipulate a maximum lead length for some areas. However, we have been careful to ensure that in every case there is an area nearby where dogs are permitted to be exercised off leads. Traditional dog leads are under two metres long anyway but we will obviously be using common sense in enforcing the orders and if a dog is under close control by its owner then clearly the council will not be taking action. However, if a dog is not under control and the lead is significantly longer than two metres then people can expect action to be taken. Like many other local authonties up and down the country (Newport 1.5 metres, South Tyneside 1.5 metres, Middlesborough two metres, Gloucester six foot) it was felt that a lead length was required as part of the dog control order's introduction to ensure dogs on a lead were actually still sufficiently under the owner's control. Clearly a dog on an extended lead would not be under sufficient control. The decision of two metres was taken after consultation with, among others, the Dogs' Trust and local residents. We would hope that all dog owners would comply with the orders which, after all, are all about promoting a clean and safe environment for all, rather thau face a fine or court action.

Cllr JIM FITZPATRICK
Tameside Council

Get tough on litter, not our dog leads

I SEE that Tameside has been in the national headlines again. I agree with Jeremy Clarkson's observations - quote "Bad news for Tameside dog lovers. In the past if you walked them on a lead you would be fine. But because your local council is far too big and has far too much time and money it's now been decided that the lead should be no more than 6ft 8in long. How can we say we're living in a free country when the people in power are telling us how long our dog lead should be?" I have a small dog and, like most responsible dog owners, when I take her out on her long expandable leash I pick up after her when she does her business. However while out on our lovely walks together in Stalybridge, (the takeaway capital of Tameside), I can't help but notice all the rubbish. I accept that dog mess can be a health hazard but so can bits of half eaten pizza, chips, chicken etc that attract vermin, besides looking an eyesore. Why can't Tameside Council concentrate onm cleaning all our streets and green areas of litter? Or better still get people on community service on litter picking duty.
JANET HARROP
Set Street,Stalybridge

Views from the web

OUR article about dog control orders has also attracted many comments on our website www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk. Here's a selection:

• It's about time this council made an example of those dog owners who let their dogs foul and then just leave it. A few £1,000 fines would make people think twice about not clearing up after their dogs.
  PHILIP MEREDITH
• What a joke! Tameside Council thinks that walking your dog on a short leash will make people more likely to clear up dog poop, how does that work exactly? I clear up my dog's mess whether it is on a leash or running free. If councillors got out of their offices and took a good look around they would see it is a small minority of repeat offenders committing the offence daily. Maybe if you employed park wardens as in times gone by the problem would be eradicated, along with littering by youths who leave empty beer tins, smashed bottles and take- way cartons.
  JOHN DODD
• I am the proud owner of a shih tzu and use Stamford Park regularly to walk her. I allow her to runl off-lead in areas where she is in full view. I pick up my dog's mess and although I agree that something is needed to highlight those irresponsible dog owners who leave their dog mess, why should we who are law abiding be made to suffer? Maybe the holier than thou council should take a look at the down and outs who sit in the park drinking bottles of strong cider after all isn't that sending out the wrong message to children?
  EVELYN MORRIS
• Its a pify that these council do-gooders have nothing better to do with their time and our money than to pick on dog owners. My dog needs lots of exercise and loves playing with a ball; do people who have horses clean up after them?
  JULIE ESPLEY
• I would be obliged if Clir Fitzpatrick could tell me where to buy one of these magic dog leads that makes dog owners responsible and picks up dog poo!
  CHRIS HOLLINSHEAD
• There is no harm just using a long lead, and it is obnoxious to penalise a certain category of people because they MIGHT cause damage by not picking up. What next, penalties for youngsters who buy paint because they MIGHT graffiti, car owners because they MIGHT drive too fast.
  CHRISTOPHER PITTERS

[Advertiser June24,2010]

Dear Ed, I find it quite amusing and ironic that the council has exempted Guide Dogs from their legislation. One of the objections to free running dogs is that they may leave mess that can cause blindness,and the people most likely to step in mess and not pick it up are those who cannot see it. My apologies to blind people,with whom I work and have great respect for,but surely the council cannot be blind to the irony?

Grass cutter problem needs to be sorted out All the fuss over dog poo should be put into perspective when compared to litter meeting a grass cutter. Locals deicde to have a drinks party most weekends and leave empty bottles and cans all over the end of the playing field. The grass cutters in their wisdom pretend not to see these and just cut over the glass and cans. On Sunday June 27, I was walking with my two border collies when we came across the bomb site of broken glass and split cans and litter. Splinters of bottles were stuck in the ground,ready to cut any pets' claws and walkers shoes'. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.This litter problem is far more dangerous than dog poo but it never gets collected or even checked. Roger Stead Aldwyn Park Audenshaw

Dog fouling 'lunacy' not common sense

THE new draconian measures against dog walkers in the borough spearheaded by Cllr Jim Fitzpatrick are exactly what they look like - lunacy. No-one would deny that dog fouling is a nuisance that warrants action. However, there are many thousands of people out walking their dogs every day and the amount of dog mess left littering the area must account for a very small proportion of dog owners. So what we have yet again is the majority being punished for the sins of a minority. Clir Fitzpatrick informed us in his letter last week that enforcement of these measures will not involve patrollers out with tape measures. However, he did not inform us how the council does hope to effectively enforce the measures. Are we now to expect a council jobsworth parked beside each field with a telescopic photo lens watching our every movement? Will we now be treated to the ludicrous spectacle of enforcement officers frantically chasing along our fields for the dog owner who just breached the strict two-metre threshold? There are people out walking dogs from dawn till dusk, which will surely mean there will be times of day when people have no fear of flagrantly ignoring these insane rules. This should all come as no surprise from a health and safety-obsessed council that has covered our roads in concrete bumps, and whose busy-body's scrutiny panel kicked up a stink over the outrage of mourners leaving a few dead flowers at the roadside. It is most fitting that they should fail foul of the scrutiny of the nation's no 1 campaigner for common sense Jeremy Clarkson. MICHAEL KENNY VICTORIA STREET HYDE

No excuses for dogs without a lead

SIR, I agree that your dog being shackled is doing no wrong. However, it is you that has been in the wrong for some considerable time if, as you state, you have been exercising your dog within the confines of a public park without the dog being on any lead. At the entranceways to all public parks there should be a sign reminding dog owners that while in the park all dogs MUST be on a lead, to do otherwise would be in contravention of local bye-laws. So as you see, sir, if you have had the dog in the park previously without being on a lead, you have been breaking the law. In addition may I add that some years ago my wife was severely bitten by a dog and needed hospital attention, this dog was on the retractable type of lead at the time but the owner thought it okay to keep the dog at some length. We must always remember that even if your dog is usually well- behaved, a dog is a wild animal and as such can revert to type at any given time without notice. A BOWKER STAMFORD GROVE STALYBRIDGE [Advertiser 30/6/2010]

How would Mr A Bowker feel if he was never allowed to walk freely just in case he hurt someone? As you can see  in the Advertiser and on the news every day,we must always remember that humans can also resort to violence at any time without any given notice. Does that mean we have to keep them on leads too,just in case? I would like to see  Mr Bowker being walked down a field or road on a lead and see the frustration in his eyes. Jemma Fielding Kinglsey Close Ashton [Advertiser [12/8/2010]

Crack down on yobs I TAKE my border collie, who needs lots of exercise, on the field where I live every day. She plays happily with her ball and, if she needs to go to the toilet, I save my bags ready. She doesn't damage trees or set fire to grass. She doesn't leave bottles, cans or other rubbish. She doesn't cause the fire brigade to come out or the police, yet she will be stopped from having her exercise and play because of the new laws banning dogs from certain playing fields and green areas. In other words, she will be punished for doing nothing wrong. However, the yobs seem to be able to do whatever they like and blight our playing fields and,parks, often without punishment. How is that fair? While I'm in favour of keeping our playing fields and green areas clean and safe, I feel the problem is not confined to dog owners (notably only the irresponsible ones who will likely not obey the new rules anyway) but also the yobs that do the majority of damage and create the greatest cost to both our local services and environment. DIANE ELLISON Denton

Youngsters are ruining playing fields I AM writing to voice my disgust at the people who have no respect for the work local councillors do for us. Egmont Street playing fields have just been done up for people to enjoy. Sadly, certain people want to spoil it for the rest of us. There is a big outcry about dog fouling just now. Well, if the people who complain about this saw the state the field is in each day they would realise that the teenage drinkers are a far worse problem. The field is littered with mountains of bottles - some smashed on purpose - and boxes, rubbish and food with no attempt made by them to clean up. I spent a good half-hour removing broken glass and rubbish before I could walk my dog. There are bins but they don't use them. I arrived one day to see the pavilion building still smouldering from a fire caused the night before and broken glass and rubbish everywhere. How do kids get hold of cases of drink and how do they afford it? Children complain there is nowhere to go and nothing for them to do but they have no care for the town they live in. I think they sheuld show a little respect for others and at least remove their rubbish. Take a bit of pride in the town you live in, this is Mossley not Beirut. TRACEY MILLS Waggon Road Mossley

Give 'us the space to let our dogs run free I HAVE no problem picking up my dog's mess, either on or off  a lead. But you will find that the people that don't pick up their dog's mess will never pick it up, whether their animal is on a lead or not. The council has not really achieved anything, if the problem is that people are sometimes frightened of dogs running around, then give us an area that is fenced off so that our dogs can get some sense of freedom. There are some wooded areas on the Pit Hills that could be fenced off, there might be other areas that could be fenced. Most dog owners don't want to upset anyone. I have a big dog that needs to be able to run and it would not have got a dog if I had known that now she couldn't enjoy her life. I think it's cruel. I went to a district assembly and put my views forward with other dog owners. I wish more dog owners would do the some and speak out for your dogs. Some of the owners should be kept on leads more than dogs - it might help sort this country out. TRACEY ABLOTT Tarbet Road Dukingfield [Advertiser 15/7/2010]

Why so few fines for 1eaving dog mess? I'VE been following the correspondence about dog fouling and litter that has been printed in the Advertiser. It seems the majority of dog owners consider themselves to be responsible and blame the irresponsible minority for causing all the mess.If that's the case there must be a lot more irresponsible dog owners than is suggested by the word 'minority' judging by the amount of mess. The canal path running from Audenshaw to Ashton is a case in point. You can barely walk 30 yards without seeing evidence of dog fouling and it's never cleared up. Surely the responsible owners must see the irresponsible owners allowing their pets to foul the place. Why don't they challenge them to clear it up or report offenders to the council? Every week there are several people fined quite substantial amounts for dropping cigarette ends, yet we hardly ever see anyone convicted of allowing their dog to foul or dropping takeaway papers. Why the discrepancy? I'm not a smoker myself but I think they are given an unfairly hard time in these politically correct days. It almost makes me want to start smoking just to annoy the nanny state dictators who are constantly trying to control more of our lives. Mr P DOHERTY Audenshaw Hall Grove Audenshaw [Advertiser 5/8/2010]

Where can I let dogs off? Please could someone clarify when and where I am allowed to let my dogs off their leads? If Tameside Council thinks it is going to stop everyone from enjoying time with their dogs then it is sadly mistaken. I ,as a responsible dog owner,have always cleaned up after my dogs. It seems to me that the responsible owners are being punished and the whole situation is getting ridiculous. What are we supposed to do? Move area? Take them out of the area? Clarification please. STEVEN HUGHES Smallshaw Lane Ashton

Council not as quick to deal with maggot infested wheelie bin For two days there has been a wheelie bin infested with maggots dumped on a footpath between Droylsden High and the playing fields. There are that many maggots that they are falling off the lid and crawling up to two metres away. This is a health and safety issue. Dog walkers from Tameside feel that they are being victimised by this council with whatever excuse they come up with not to take their dogs on the field,yet when we have a potential risk from this bin dumped by a member of the public,they are nowhere to be seen. I pay full rates - for what - I am beginning to wonder. ANGELA COLE Droylsden [Advertiser 26/8/10]

Let our dogs run free by Tom Rowley

DOG owners are calling on Tameside Council to relax dog control orders in local parks. A demonstration is planned in Dukinfield Park from 1pm this Sunday. John Dodd took his dog in there on Saturday and saw signs stating that owners will be prosecuted if they do not clear up their dog's mess and that dogs must be kept on a leash no more than two metres long. He does not think dogs can get the daily exercise they need whilst on a leash. He understands dog faeces is dangerous and unpleasant but says that he - like other responsible dog owners - already clear up after his dogs. He said: "I call on all responsible dog owners at 1pm on Sunday to meet in the park and prove to Clir John Taylor what we think of his new laws and stand up for our right to be able to exercise our dogs and not be ostracised from society simply because we love our pets. "I look forward to seeing as many as possible." Meanwhile, owners in Droylsden want the order covering Lees Park to apply to other parks in the district too. There, at the park which adjoins Oldham Street and Market Street, dogs must be on a lead of no more than two metres 'if an authorised officer of the council requests it'. But in Sunnybank Park, off Lewis Road and Sunnybank Avenue Mini Park - which adjoins Sunnybank Road, south of Manor Road - dogs have to be on leads at all times. Mark Hollingsworth, of Edge Lane, has a border collie, Teggaun and a border collie/German Shepherd cross, Bonnie. "Both are energetic dogs and need to run at least twice a day" said Mark, 36. "I work in a foundry in Newton Heath and now with these laws if I want to take the dogs out in the morning I have walk 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back to Lees Park where I can exercise them. Yet I'm only five minutes from the park on Lewis Road. I could go there and still be in time for work. "It's also wrong that the lead must be no more than two metres long. A lot of owners have leads which extend to 15 metres and dogs can run a lot faster than most owners. Not being able to exercise our dogs off lead and confining them to a lead of no more than two metres will not solve the dog fouling issue in any way "Irresponsible owners will still fail to pick up after their dogs. We feel that no realistic attempt by the council has ever been made to enforce the existing laws." Mark and partner Christine Yeomans have organised a petition calling on the council to re-evaluate the orders, which has attracted more than 80 names. "We understand it's unfair to have dogs going in cemeteries and schools," he said. "But punish the owners that offend, not the responsible dog owners of Tameside. This is unfair and dangerous as lack of exercise for the dogs could lead to behaviour and health problems. Substantial exercise and socialisation with other dogs maintains a good temperament." They have setup an online petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/tamesideagainstdogcontrolorders for people to show their support. Cllr John Taylor deputy Tameside Council leader, said: "While Sunnybank Park (Lewis Road Park) does have dog control orders in place because it contains several football pitches, the adjacent grassed site which is a former tip area is not covered by any dog control orders at all. "When deciding where to introduce a 'dogs on lead at all times' order as opposed to a 'dogs on lead by request' order the council has had to balance the needs of park users against dog owners' needs and where the public open space includes sports pitches the former was adopted. "The council has also given an undertaking to review the possibility of relaxing the orders from 'dogs on leads at all times' to 'dogs on leads by request of an authorised officer' at Greenside Lane and Copperas Fields, which should be finalised by the end of the year."

Dog owners unleash protest over orders

DOG owners turned out in force to protest at dog control orders imposed by Tameside Council. Around 100 converged on Dukinfield Park with pooches of all breeds and slues. Owners are angry that dogs have to be kept on leashes no more than two metres long which they say restricts the exercise their pets receive and they want more spaces where they can roam free. "They just kept coming!" said organiser John Dodd. "Feelings are running high. It's not about dog fouling any more, it's about having a dog on lead - it's become a revenue raising exercise for councils. "We go into the park on a regular basis. We know who the offenders are who let their dogs foul and don't clean it up. Why don't the Patrollers do something about them and not turn responsible dog walkers - who do clean up the mess - into criminals, if they don't have their dog on a lead? "On Sunday we were all under the cameras and there wasn't a patroller in sight." Similar to other parks in the borough, the control order in Dukinfleld Park excludes dogs from the fenced-off games and children's play areas and they have to be on a lead at all times in the rest of the park. Mr Dodd, of Armadale Road, Dukinfield added that the Veterinary Society and the Kennel Club say dogs need vigorous regular exercise to keep their digestive system in good condition. "They can't get that on a lead Responsible dog owners look after their animals. They don't need to be victimised. "There are plans for other protests in Denton and in Ashton market place in the next three to four weeks." Anyone interested can email tamesidedogs@hotmail.co.uk Cilr Kevin Welsh said: "While the dog control orders do stipulate a maximum lead length for some areas we have been careful to ensure that in every case there is an area nearby where dogs are permitted to be exercised off leads. Traditional dog leads are well under two metres long anyway but we will obviously be using common sense in enforcing the orders. "Like many other local authorities it was felt that a lead length was required to ensure dogs on a lead were actually still sufficiently under the owner's control. Clearly a dog on an extended lead of tens of metres would not be under sufficient control. The decision of two metres was taken after consultation with, among others, the Dogs' Trust and local residents. We would hope all dog owners would comply with the orders which, after all, are all about promoting a clean and safe environment for all." [Advertiser 2/9/10]

Dog control orders are needed

SO there were 100 people in Dukinfield Park on August 29 protesting about dog control orders. Very impressive, but for every one of them I could get together at least 10 who believe that dogs should not be allowed to run free in parks. As for the 'Love Dogs - Hate Taylor' signs, thanks for giving me the credit for dog-control orders but it wasn't actually me that brought them in. No matter though, they have my full support and I voted in favour at the cabinet and board meetings that made the decision. What the protesters need to understand is that these orders aren't just about fouling - they are about the control of dogs. We can't have dogs running about parks and playing fields, free to frighten children or to urinate on the play equipment. There are far too many cases of people being attacked. Last week's Advertiser also carried a story about a poodle being savaged by a bigger dog in Droylsden. On August 26 we were told about a similar case in Ashton. And within the last few days a child has been attacked in Scotland. I accept that the majority of dog- owners are responsible but parks are for the use of all members of the public, not just them. There may not have been any patrollers in Dukinfield Park when the protest took place but rest assured that control orders will be enforced and fixed penalties will be issued as necessary There is no way that we can allow dogs to run free in our parks with the dangers that involves. Cllr JOHN TAYLOR Deputy leader Tameside Council I AM writing in disgust at your 'Hate' promotion picture on the front of the Advertiser (September 2). Nobody should be promoting hate with any family name, regardless of any issue and you are. I agree that people are entitled to their opinions and if the sign saying 'Love dogs hate Taylor' wasn't there, then I wouldh't be making this complaint.The word hate in my opinion incites violence and aggression. This is a letter complaining to the editor of this newspaper for allowing this sign to be published, not a complaint about John Dodd, the organiser of this campaign. MARK TAYLOR Vicarage Drive Dukinfield [Advertiser  9/9/10]

Tayloring dog orders to suit [Try carrots instead of sticks] I am glad to hear that Councillor Taylor was not behind the dog orders - but he says he can get as many to turn out in support of them. I for one would like to see that - as seeing as the orders were not voted for,then a turnout of a majority in favour would at least indicate that the word "democracy" had in some way been recognised because otherwise it looks like total fascism on the council's part. So go on then Councillor Taylor - show us all those people in favour of leaving dogmess in bags so it does not degrade and for it to hang in trees,and for all Tameside dogs to become has unhealthy as mine. Perhaps if the council stopped instituting petty by-laws and actually used carrot policies instead of sticks,and maybe invested in dog-runs - everyone could be happy and perhaps democracy would not look like state dictatorship. DL Borrell

Time to get tough on owners who let their pets roam wild WITH all the discussions focusing on the responsible dog owners who walk their dogs on a lead (and pick up) can I ask what Tameside Council plans to do about the dogs that roam tile streets unsupervised and the owners who allow this? These dogs are left free to terrorise people walking their dogs and defecate wherever they see fit, which will most definitely not be picked up by the owner. I have an issue where I live with two dogs, one dog in particular that is always roaming the streets on an almost daily basis. Twice it has tried to attack my dog and on one occasion it actually jumped on my back. I have reported this dog to the dog warden at least five times during the week when I have seen it loose and four times of a weekend. Only last week I ran into this dog again and I had to get my partner to come and pick me up so I could get home without confrontation. So how about getting tough with these people? J TENCH [Advertiser  9/9/10]

Action, not orders, the answer ON YOUR letters page Cllr Taylor expresses his concern for children and others being threatened by dogs running free-in the parks. Without the benefit of history Cllr Taylor's words would give the reader a clear message of his position on the new dog control orders and his concerns for the safety of the public. However, when Cllr Taylor was first elected back in the early 80s we had a very organised park police force with all the powers of full police officers. Every park had its own park keeper (parkie) who enforced the rules. All these services have been cut during Cllr Taylor's rise to deputy leader of Tameside Council. During the last 25 years had the annual budget for our parks received the same treatment as our councillors' allowances our parks would be the envy of the world. Back then my own local park had a parkie who managed the putting green, tennis court and three football pitches, all used every Saturday and Sunday. Now all that remains are the football pitches that are so expensive to hire pub teams are virtually nonexistent. I accept the Tory years forced councils to make cuts but since 1997 money has been available for parks and patrollers but our council has done nothing to catch and prosecute the anti-social dog owners that blight our parks. Compare our parks to town centre car parks and areas with double yellow lines and you will see where our council's priority and spending lies. Had it tried to catch anti-social dog owners I would welcome changes similar to Manchester city council's. The new dog control orders are useless ineffective lazy politics. ROBERT BOWLES Lewis Road Droylsden Terrifying dog attack brings home the need for change I TOTALLY agree with the dog control order after I was chased and pounced on by an alsatian and rottweiler while off the lead. Fortunately I wasn't hurt physically but mentally I was afraid to take my dog out for months and even now I am still terrified when I see large dogs off their leads. I always pick my dog up who is only tiny but reading what happened to that poor man in Ashton who was knocked to the ground trying to defend his dog from a pit bull horrified me. However, these dog orders are being ignored. I take my dog to Medlock playing fields, Greenside Lane and Manor Road and there are countless people out there ignoring the signs that have been put up. I even asked someone to please put their dog on the lead but he just said no. So the question I have to ask the council is how it is going to get irresponsible dog owners to abide by the rules? S A CASTLE Springfield Road Droylsden I WOULD he the first to say no dog should be off its leash if its handler does not have close control. But I would ask what has happened about the statement in June that if a dog was clearly under close control by its handler then the council would not be taking any action? How many people have been seriously attacked by dogs in Tameside parks this year? Perhaps the council does not realise that most of us older residents exercise our dogs in the parks and other similar areas, not only to help our dogs remain healthy but in order to meet people, to exercise ourselves and keep healthy. A L JONES Dukinfleld. I FIND it very sad that there are people out there who do not think that dogs should be able to run free and should be kept on a lead at all times. They only get exercise two or three times a day as it is and they love to run and chase after things and to deprive them of this is cruel. What if the littlest Hobo had heen on a lead? What a boring series that would have been! And how many lives would have been lost if Lassie was restrained? JEMMA FIELDING Kingsley Close Ashton Where is this new rule leading us? THERE is nothing more beautiful and heartwarming than to see your much- loved pet enjoying some free time. It, the reason for these rules is that people are fed up with seeing dog faeces lying around and the potential danger that it can create, then the council and those who support this legislation are deluding themselves because those irresponsible owners who do not pick up after their dogs now will continue not to do so whether their dogs are on a lead or not. Shame on those owners for giving responsible owners and their dogs a bad name and allowing a shameful council to punish them with this legislation. The council should put more effort into catching these people. What's the next step otherwise? Banning dogs completely whether on a lead or not? And when dog faeces becomes more of a problem on our streets than it is now, ban all dogs from any public spaces at all? J WHITESIDE Droylsden [Advertiser]Sep23,2010]

Dog lead orders could be eased DOG owners who are up in arms at new resirictions in parks and public spaces could have faced far worse - a TOTAL parks ban. That was the idea mooted originally by some councillors, it has been reveated this week. But they pulled back from that 'nuclear option' and now more concessions could be on the way. A review of the orders is ongoing, and is due to be finalised by Tameside Council,in late Novomber or early December, after comments from residents have been assessed. In Droylsden, the council is considering restricting the order on the playing fields at Greenside Lane and Copperas Lane playing fields, so dogs would only need a lead when an authorised council officer - such as a patroller requested it. At present, dogs have to be on leads at all times in those areas. Coun Ged Cooney said he was a dog owner and certainly not anti-dog, just anti-fouling. "Initially, there was talk of banning dogs altogether from parks. A council officer had produced a report looking at all the options. But when that came back to the district assembly we opposed that. "It was decided to have a borough-wide policy that anyone with a dog in identified areas should have their dog on a lead. It's all about how we all interact with each other in certain areas - dogs in parks and childrea playing in parks - and coming to a sensible arrangement." Deputy council leader John Taylor who has become a 'hate' fignre for some owners - said: "When the orders were proposed I was never in favour of banning dogs from the parks, only from cemeteries. We are going to look at them at the end of the year to see if we need to tweak, strengthen or relax them." And Dukinfield district assembly heard a similar relaxation to the one raised for Droylsden might be in the offing at Clarendon Fields. Kevin Garside, town manager for Hyde, Stalybridge, Longdendale and Mossley said his office had as yet not received any 'queries' as to revisions of the order in those areas. Denton town manager Nick Sayers was unavailable for comment as the Advertiser went to press. Ian Cochrane, acting town manager for Droyloden and Ashton, said the existing orders are a compromise between the needs of dog owners and other users of the parks, in light of the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act. He said: "A total ban on dogs from all of our parks was never really on the cards - it would never have got through the council." Coun Jim Middleton, chairman of the Droylsden assembly, said he'd owned several dogs in  the past. "We want the borough clean," he told the assembly. "Nowhere looks after its dog owners better than Tanieside Council but Tameside will be clear of dog fouling as near as we can get  - that's the overall plan."

Give dogs dedicated park space I AM writing in response to Mark Taylor (Readers' Letters, September 9) at his disgust at what he calls your 'hate promotion picture' on the front page. I attended the protest and it was a well-organised, peaceful protest and the sign was only a 'tongue-in-cheek' poke at Tameside Council and Cllr John Taylor Cllr Taylor was probably singled out as he had taken up a considerable amount of space on the letters' page on the subject of dog fouling. As for the word hate, according to the Collins English dictionary; it means to 'dislike strongly: intensely'. No mention of violence or aggression. Tameside Council has gone about this all the wrong way. Take Dukinfield Park. At the bottom end of the park at the King Street entrance, there's a patch of land that could be transformed into a designated area for dogs to run free and play. All it would take is to fence the area off and provide bins for the dog waste. Hyde Park also has an area behind the toilets that also could be used. I'm sure every park has a patch of land that could be used in this way Both areas mentioned are well away from the children's play area. SUSAN HARRISON Dukinfield

Muddle over new restrictions THERE has been lots of debate about the dog control orders over recent weeks and one of the council's comments was that wherever they placed the restrictions they would ensure that there was somewhere locally that our dogs could be exercised freely. They placed a restriction in Stamford Park which I can understand, although I still don't agree that shorter leads will encourage people to pick up the dog mess. So I stopped going to the park-and started to exercise my dogs on Chaddy Dam near the fishing lake. There are no children on there apart from the ones who ride mini motos in the middle of the night. I went there recently to exercise the dogs to find that this area is now subject to a dog control order if you access it from the boating lake entrance, dogs must be put on leads under the instruction of a patroller but if you access the area from Lakes Road there is a £1,000 fine if your dog is off a lead or on a lead longer than six foot. As both these entrances lead onto the same area, which is the correct sign? How can the council restrict that area to lead only, it is a few fields and a lake! I would appreciate some feedback from the council on where I can let my dogs off the lead in the SK15 area? I cannot see any option now but to drive somewhere to take my dogs for some off-lead exercise, thus causing further pollution. J TENCH Stalybridge

Let's see more police DURING a recent stroll through Stamford Park I witnessed a bunch of youths some of them walking, some on bikes, just indiscriminately and for no reason whatsoever begin to rip up various plants from the surrounding flower beds. One of these morons actually got down on one knee to offer what I can only imagine was his sweetheart a present of said uprooted flowers. I have seen a lot of unpleasantness throughout the time I have resided in Tameside; drunken brawls, people spitting openly in the streets, idiot cyclists careering past you while you're legally using a footpath, wheelie bins emptied out into the roads with litter strewn everywhere, dog faeces in disturbing amounts, I could go on but I won't. The point I'm making is, what is being done? Where are the cops? Where are the PCSOs? If you are lucky enough to see any they're usually in cars or speeding past on bicycles and it's just not good enough. I walk around Ashton town centre nearly every day and in the whole of last week I spotted just one cop and two PCSOs. It would be interesting to hear what response comes because I already know what will be said and it'll be the same old lame reply: "Well, we do what we can given the current financial climate and there is a police pod inside Ashton market hall" and you see therein lies the problem. They're all inside the market hall drinking tea instead of out protecting us. The people of Tameside deserve better STEPHEN GARSIDE Alexandra Street Ashton

NOW that Tameside Council has de facto banned the two most regular groups frequenting Stamford Park - namely responsible dog owners through the draconian dog control orders and families with young children as there are no facilities for them (regardless of what Cllr Kevin 'Two Swings' Welsh says) - who exactly is left? The council's commitment to heritage is also sadly lacking with the bolting of the unsightly dog control notices onto the main gates of all our lovely parks - not really adding to the Victorian ambience. Will the last one out lock the gate and leave it for the feral youths? M SMITH Dukinfleld THE ADVERTISER, TIIIJRSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

Volunteer wardens are the answer I AGREE with the dog leash by-law but not for its intended reason - to prevent dog fouling. This will not prevent those owners who, quite simply do not pickup after their dogs. I do agree with the dog leash by-law for the safety of both pet dogs and humans alike. I would love to see my dog bounding arolmd and enjoying himself but not at the risk of getting mauled by other out of control dogs. Firstly Tameside Council needs to deal with the fact that this law is never going to work unless it employs enough wardens to enforce the penalties. If there are enough people out there who feel strongly enough about dog fouling - and I assume that recent budget restraints have hit Tameside Council too - why aren't volunteer wardens employed such as local residents in uniform with powers and who report back to the various authorities. Both Tameside Council and those opposed to the dog leash by- law need to consider having OFF- LEAD dog-walking areas only most Tameside parks are big enough and could accommodate these. There should be a sectioned-off area in most parks where dogs can freely bound around off their lead and where an intense number of dog waste bins could be located. S HYNES Droylsden

Health scare tactics will not stop fouling AS dog owner I agree with 99 per cent of Tameside Council's dog control orders and also with the council's efforts to call for all dog owners to pick up their dogs' mess. However it is the responsible disposal of this mess that concerns me. Simply targeting dog owners and threatening them with all manner of draconian measures purely on the holier-than-thou pretext of 'health scares' is not the way to stop this fouling problem - because other animals defecate as well. While it is indeed proper for the council to draw our aftention to the potential hazards associated with dog faeces and the potential health risks, it is also important to keep the level of threat in perspective. Cainpaigning councrnors have told us that toxocara in dog faeces can cause blindness, epilepsy asthma and eye infections. The worm eggs can survive in the soil even after it's rained, so children playing on grass are much more at risk. The bacteria can cause sick- ness and diarrhoea, and that is indeed true, however the health aspects of this problem are often over stated in an effort to add further weight to the anti-social littering aspect. This fact has been confirmed by the NHS Clinical Information Service, who verified that Toxocarias is a rare condition. ROGER BAMFORD Hollingworth

Leads do not stop every dog attack I AM one of several dog trainers/psychologists/behaviourists who live and work in Tameside. Nobody from Tameside Council has asked any of us (as far as I can establish) for input or information on these ludicrous dog control orders. Coun Taylor in his last letter tells us about a poodle which was savaged to death in Droylsden. What he omitted to say was that its attacker was on a lead. This is already becoming a problem in Tameside - one of my own dogs was recently attacked on Werneth Low by a very large dog on a lead. I witnessed a very similar incident at Daisy Nook. Dogs on leads feel very vulnerable and feel they need to defend themselves first and ask questions later, whereas dogs off the lead are able to 'dance' around each other and carry out greeting behaviour. If kept permanently on leads, aggressive behaviour wrn become worse as time goes on. Only last week in Mossley, my friend was bitten by a Cerman shepherd on a lead. A few weeks ago, Kieran Quinn wrote to the Advertiser In the first few sentences he talked about 'dogs on leads' and then moved to owners being in control' - even he seemed to realise that these two thingsare not the same at all. There is already a law (the Dangerous Dogs Act) which states that owners must be 'in control' of their dogs in public places. The council should concentrate on that rather than these 'control orders', which are anything but It should also decide exactly why it has done this terrible, unnecessary deed - is it because irresponsible owners are not picking up dog faeces? Or is it to do with dangerous dogs? As pointed out by others in the Advertiser, if the council can spare the staff to pounce on little old ladies with dogs off the lead it can spare the staff to catch people not picking up faeces. It could also spare the staff to catch the dirty filthy people who throw needles, condoms and baby wipes, glass bottles, vomit and drinks cans on places like Dunkirk Lane car park, which I and other dog walkers clean up daily because we are sick of our dogs being injured or made sick by human detritus. CATH SHAW [Advertiser Oct7,2010]

Dog restrictions not necessary I AM slowly losing all faith in Tameside council to listen to its residents' views and support them. To quote the Advertiser (September 30): "Nowhere looks after its dog owners better than Tameside council." Is that supposed to be a joke? I do not feel looked after by my council at all - in fact I feel utterly let down. My concern will peak during the winter months. I live on the outskirts of Clarendon fields and I can no longer take my four dogs on there. They regularly compete in the sport of fly- ball, so their exercise is top of my priorities. For now I can use the canal which is just a short walk away, but when winter draws in this will not be an option. I do not enjoy walking along the canal at 7am when it is dark, but when it starts to freeze over I will not take my dogs over there - it is far too great a risk. So that leaves me with lead walking four dogs, which, in order for it to wear them out sufficiently would take about three hours not very realistic, is it? I hear the orders are being reviewed which really is a relief, even if I do have to wait until January next year. The issue for myself and others is that most of the restrictions are just not necessary I completely agree that cemeteries and children's play areas are not places to take your dog, but what about all the open green spaces? Yes they may be used by footballers once or twice a week, but now the orders are in place many of these spaces are now completely desolate - perfect for teens and yobs to gather and make fires, drink alcohol and drop litter. The council has been completely close minded about this whole thing. It did NOT consult adequately with residents and now won't even talk to us. I help run a website aimed at getting the latest information to dog owners across Tameside regarding the orders and other dog-based news and articles. It is www.tamesidedogs.org.uk. Vicky Dawe DawesPaws Dog Training Club

IN response to an article in the Advertiser (September 30) regarding relaxing dog control orders, I noted a statement where it was suggested at Greenside Lane and Copperas Lane playing fields in Droylsden, dogs currently "...have to be on a lead at all times in those areas". They may well have to be but I can assure readers - with regards to Greenside Lane and surrounding fields at least most owners do not keep dogs on a lead I've witnessed about one in 50 dog owners keeping their dogs under control. The article suggested this relaxing - or should I say capitulation - of the rules would include that dogs would only need a lead "...when an authorised council officer - such as a patroller - requested it". I've never seen one since these regulations were brought in, nor have I heard of any council officer imposing any rules or handing out fines. Capitulation and naivety spring to mind. 'Muddying the waters' is the appropriate phrase in this council back-pedalling exercise. S HYNES Droylsden [Advertiser 14/10/10]

Where is the evidence for these dog offences? HAS Tameside Council got evidence of what and how many dog related incidents have been reported and in which parks? Responsible dog owners believe the 'dogs on lead' at all times order is unjust and will not resolve the problems of anti-social behaviour. The orders have been applied in parks. Why when Tameside doesn't seem to be able to evidence what dog control offences have been committed in parks, nor does it seem to be able to tell us the number of fixed penalty notices issued for offences in parks? Surely an order shouldn't be applied without evidence to support the need for it? How can the council be sure the correct orders have been applied on the correct sites without knowing what offences have been committed where? How is Tameside planning to reduce anti social behaviour on the streets? Does Tameside really believe dogs don't foul when on a lead? Does Tameside really believe an irresponsible dog owner will clean up just because their dog is on a lead? Dogs are walked on streets on a lead, but the lead has not resolved the problem of dog fouling, commitment to enforcement would. The lead has not stopped irresponsible dog owners walking their dogs unleashed along the streets, some probably don't even own a lead. Why does Tameside think a notice on the park gates will make any difference? Irresponsible dog owners are what they are, they will flout the law no matter what, just as other offenders do. Dog fouling is not a new offence, applying an order which penalizes responsible dog owners in the hope it will resolve the problem is not the answer. The council using its powers and enforcing its orders is. Responsible owners are urging the council to see sense and relax the dogs on lead at all times order to dogs on lead by request and stop using the one cap fits all approach. MARION SMULDERS

The BBC recently screened this programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012w66t Afterlife - the strange science of decay. At the moment I am witnessing bags of dog excrement attached to tree branches in Stamford Park and Knott Hill resr thanks to council edicts and no dog bin provision. If there was any understanding of the science as per BBC programme we would not be in this mess (sic) and slugs would have taken care of the problem. Toxicaria is an overrated problem and can be no worse than excrement in bags hanging around to infect birds and people alike - is it not time for a rethink on biodegradable effluent from animals? Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for your complaint. I will pass this on to Ian Cochrane, Acting Town Manager, who will reply in due course. Regards Tracey Bennett Project Officer

Response by: Tameside MBC (Ashton DA) Response received: 12/12/2011 15:23 Dear Sir/Madam I write in response to your enquiry regarding dog fouling. I can advise you that the Council introduced Dog Control Orders in June 2010 which made it an offence if dog fouling is not removed in all Tameside's parks and open spaces. Failure to renew dog faeces can result in prosecution and a fine. The Council had a small number of dog waste bins, but given the cost of disposing of the waste, these were removed in early 2010 with dog owners encouraged to dispose of their dog fouling in normal waste bins. I hope that this is of some assistance. Regards Ian Cochrane Acting Town Manager I presume you mean "not removed " and "removed" as opposed to "renew"? The point I was making was this: The BBC programme showed how things decay naturally - slugs removed waste naturally - they cannot do so if it is in a plastic bag or up a tree. The waste is up a tree because there are no bins. If the council wishes to have a policy then either provide the bins,or remove the farcical requirement to bag it and bin it - if it is not going in bins it ends up in trees in plastic bags where Toxicaria is an even greater risk.So it is absurd to suggest fines etc are the offing because of the risk of Toxicaria,when council policy has made it more likely that contact will be made with the cause of the problem. Where waste is liable to be a hazard to the public,ie on pavements,town centres,or public parks,then I can see the point of having it removed,but upon waste ground and areas where natural decay is highly likely,the policy only causes bags of excrement to end up in trees which is unhealthy all around. Since no one is going to police the areas where these bags end up - ie Knott Hill resrs,the green area between Mossley Road and the rear of Tameside Hospital and other such places where there is no CCD or community police then why make it so that bags of excrement end up in trees? Surely it is better to relax the policy and let nature do the job it was doing before the PC brigade made everyone's life insufferable? This problem is made worse in those areas by council policy.

Tameside Environmental Health

tamesidedogs@hotmail.co.uk