Musings from the Merse
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
GOING TO THE DOGS
As the Berwickshire feverishly searches for new 'Issues' to titivate its readership it has now found one that is sure to attract a large yes vote.
So far so good:
Should stronger action be taken to control dog fouling in public places?
Yes [100%]
No [0%]
Don't Know [0%]
Of course not many people will read the real question which is about 'stronger action' as the gut feeling is that dog fouling is so. er, foul something must be done perhaps ignoring that there are quite a raft of measures already in place-hefty fines, dog wardens, much publicity and a general public attitude of intolerance towards incontinent dogs. Although very few Borderers will actually risk confrontation by tackling an offending dog owner direct. Go home muttering and write to the Berwickshire, yes, tell the big burly man walking his whippet to bag the filth, no.
And what is stronger action?
The question needs to be rephrased
"Do you support persistently offending dog owners being put up against a tree or lamppost and shot? "
A bit harsh in this day and age and unlikely to attract more than a 60% yes vote
Think out side the box. Or sand tray. Its the dogs who crap, not the owners. Shift the onus. Bring back the licensing of dogs (Give underused rural post offices some thing to do) and no cur would be allowed in a public place unless certified Eco Friendly. If a dog can be taught to come to heel, sit, round up sheep, beg,, die for daddy,get the paper, nick golf balls it surely can be taught not to crap outside its own premises.
So if dog poo continues to be a problem once the necessary legislation and certification then you know who you are looking for.
The Dog.
Remove 'owners' from the above rephrased issue.
You would get as big a yes vote as reopening Reston Station got a no And the Berwickshire could move on to (clean) pastures fresh and issues new
As the Berwickshire feverishly searches for new 'Issues' to titivate its readership it has now found one that is sure to attract a large yes vote.
So far so good:
Should stronger action be taken to control dog fouling in public places?
Yes [100%]
No [0%]
Don't Know [0%]
Of course not many people will read the real question which is about 'stronger action' as the gut feeling is that dog fouling is so. er, foul something must be done perhaps ignoring that there are quite a raft of measures already in place-hefty fines, dog wardens, much publicity and a general public attitude of intolerance towards incontinent dogs. Although very few Borderers will actually risk confrontation by tackling an offending dog owner direct. Go home muttering and write to the Berwickshire, yes, tell the big burly man walking his whippet to bag the filth, no.
And what is stronger action?
The question needs to be rephrased
"Do you support persistently offending dog owners being put up against a tree or lamppost and shot? "
A bit harsh in this day and age and unlikely to attract more than a 60% yes vote
Think out side the box. Or sand tray. Its the dogs who crap, not the owners. Shift the onus. Bring back the licensing of dogs (Give underused rural post offices some thing to do) and no cur would be allowed in a public place unless certified Eco Friendly. If a dog can be taught to come to heel, sit, round up sheep, beg,, die for daddy,get the paper, nick golf balls it surely can be taught not to crap outside its own premises.
So if dog poo continues to be a problem once the necessary legislation and certification then you know who you are looking for.
The Dog.
Remove 'owners' from the above rephrased issue.
You would get as big a yes vote as reopening Reston Station got a no And the Berwickshire could move on to (clean) pastures fresh and issues new
Labels: Dirty Dogs., Dog owners, Dog Poo
Comments:
Post a Comment
