Demographic Differences

While agreement for this measure was high across all age groups there were no respondents aged 18 to 34 that were unsure or against renewing measure 1.

Demographic Differences

Respondents that do not own a dog had a significantly greater proportion that were in favour of this measure with 92.3% answering this way compared to 74.5% of dog owners. Overall, almost one in five dog owners were against introducing this measure compared to just under one in twenty non-dog owners.

Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were not in favour of the new measure with 13.5% responding this way compared to 8.9% of economically inactive respondents.

The 18 to 34 years group had the greatest proportion that were opposed to introducing a new measure for carrying a means of disposal for dog faeces with 19.7% answering this way, significantly greater than the proportion that answered this way for the age groups 45 years and over. Overall, the proportion opposing the new measure declines as age increases.

There were no respondents from minority groups that were opposed to introducing a new measure for carrying a means of disposal for dog faeces.

Measure 1 – Total Comments 355

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Negative –Carrying means of disposal

67

·         I think checking that people have poo bags is a step too far as it does not ensure that dog owners will actually use them or that they won’t pick up the faeces and then leave the bag or hang it on a branch!

·         It is possible that a person may have used and disposed in a bin the poo bags they had on them. If then challenged and fined that would seem overly punitive.

·         Checking what people have on them seems intrusive and a bit authoritarian.

Neutral

70

·         It’s the responsibility of the Dog owner to pick up their Dogs stuff.

·         Dog faeces is dangerous to young children who might be playing on the public land.

·         I clear up after my dog but get annoyed at those irresponsible dog owners who do not.

Poo Bag Littering

50

·         We also should punish people who pick up faeces but leaving bags on a ground or hanging on a tree.

·         Provision to make sure that dog poo in bags is disposed of properly. Not left on the street or in trees!

·         There seems to be an increase in the number of dog faeces plastic bags left either on the ground, or hung up in trees or fences, presumably for litter pickers to dispose if for the dog owner. Just having a bag on them will not ensure they dispose if the waste properly.

Enforcement

47

·         From by experience, even though a dog person may have a bag they often look around and if they believe no one is around they just move on and don't pick up their dog’s poop.

·         The problem is one of enforcement. There is never anyone of official capacity around to challenge offenders.

·         How do you propose to catch offenders as you can only catch them if seen etc and there’s never anyone from council watching etc

Positive – Carrying means of disposal

46

·         Most dog owners have all been caught short, while I support the measure, I do hope there will be community awareness session if this is put in.

·         Dog owners should prove they can clear up after their animals especially on footpaths and in the town centre.

·         If they don’t have poo bags, then they do not intend to pick it up so this makes sense.

Bins

27

·         There needs to be sufficient dog poo bins provided in areas where dogs are regularly exercised.

·         We live near Farleigh bridge and the walks along the river have NO dog foul bins, I always carry dog foul bags and take it home but it means I have to carry it for as long as I am out ,if there were dog bins along the way I am sure more people would not let their dogs foul and leave it in the path.

·         What if someone has one bag, cleans up after their dog and is then stopped? This seems draconian. Better to provide more dog bins to encourage owners.

Go further

25

·         And, as happens commonly overseas, they should bring disinfectant to spray on the contaminated surface after removal of faeces.

·         Could dog licenses be bought back in? And microchip. Would deter people not serious about having dogs!

·         Inconsiderate dog owners should face fixed penalties and a further penalty of having their dog taken away if persistent behaviour continues.

Positive - General

21

·         This seems entirely logical and presumably no responsible dog owner would object to this.

·         Sounds ok but it’s catching people not cleaning up after their dogs that needs addressing. Can’t see how they can enforce any measures. Not the people to check.

·         It’s about time this measure is introduced. Dog owners think they have a right to allow their dogs to foul anywhere even on people’s front gardens.

Demographic Differences

The 18 to 34 years group had the greatest proportion that were opposed to continuing measure 2 at 15.6%, significantly greater than the proportion that answered this way for all other age groups.

Carer respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were in favour of continuing measure 2 with 95.4% answering this way compared to 91.1% of non-carer respondents.

Respondents with a disability had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing with measure 2. Almost one in ten respondents with a disability responded ‘No’ compared to just under one in twenty respondents without a disability.

Positive about Measure 2

72

·         Yes, continue to exclude dogs from children's play areas etc. Families in the play areas do not want dogs there as some might be dangerous. With what is happening nowadays - dogs attacking dogs and their owners you have to be so careful.

·         I am not anti-dog but believe both children’s play areas & tennis courts are not suitable for dogs to be allowed into.

·         I agree that dogs should be prohibited from entering child safe spaces. Borough council needs to ensure gates and fences are dog proof to stop the dogs getting in.

Measure should go further

33

·         I think that the exclusion should be extended to football and all other play areas, because of the risk of infection.

·         Dogs should be kept on a lead on council owned lands and facilities, at all times.

·         Dogs should not be allowed in public parks or spaces at all.

Neutral (no sentiment expressed regarding measure)

34

·         Dogs are often jumping up me when I walk in Mote Park! Their owners should take more responsibility! They just say! He won’t hurt you.

·         Badly trained dogs could be dangerous around children. Small children are often frightened of dogs too.

·         Children can catch diseases from dog poo if they should come into contact with it.

Boundaries & Fencing

23

·         For gates and barriers to be kept in good repair so that they close effectively thereby assisting dog owners and park users to continue enjoying the space.

·         All fencing and self-closing gates surrounding children’s play areas should be maintained.

·         Signage needs to be visible and clear.

Enforcement

21

·         Again, if there is no-one there to ensure the rules are kept how effective will this measure be?

·         Even though there are currently no means to monitor or enforce this! All play areas should have CCTV.

·         Please ensure there is enough personnel to implement these measures.

Negative about measure 2

10

·         Will exclude taking pets out on family days out. As cannot leave pet in car or tied to a fence due to dog theft.

·         Most dogs are family pets so are safe around children, and children should be allowed to play with their dogs in these play spaces. Only dogs with known behavioural issues should be restricted from play areas. Exclusion from tennis courts should be kept as is.

·         I think dogs on a lead and under control should be allowed. Visiting the play area may be part of a wider trip exercising the dog as well as the child and owner/caretaker.

Dog specific areas

9

·         We'd appreciate some areas where dogs can be freely let off the lead without worry or concern so that they may play freely with other dogs without the fear of intimidating children.

·         Can you please include dog friendly areas where children are not allowed?

Demographic Differences

More than one in ten respondents (11.5%) that own a dog were opposed to extending measure 3 to cover the town centre, significantly greater than the proportion answering this way who do not own a dog, where just under one in twenty (4.5%) non-dog owners were opposed to extending measure 3.

Female respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to extending measure 3 to the town centre with 10.3% answering this way compared to 5.9% of male respondents answering the same.

When compared to the other age groups, the 18 to 34 years group had a significantly lower proportion that were in favour to extending measure 3 at 78.4%%, and a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to extending measure 3 than other age groups.

Carer respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were in favour of extending measure 3 with 92.7% answering this way compared to 87.7% of non-carer respondents.

Respondents with a disability had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to extending measure 3 to Maidstone town centre with 12.8% responding this way compared to 7.1% of non-disabled respondents answering the same.

Measure 3 – Total Comments - 297

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Positive – extending to Town Centre

108

·         I agree that the town centre in the shopping areas should include this expansion but not Whatman Park.

·         The town centre is busy, so this is for the safety of people and the dogs.

·         Dogs can be/or are distracted very easily, it makes sense to keep them on the lead in these sorts of areas.

Positive – Retain existing measures at Cemetery & Crematorium

68

·         Agree - the Cemetery and Crematorium are places of respect, and a dog wouldn’t know that - the owner needs to ensure control, so the dog doesn’t wander over graves / plots or foul. The idea of extending to the town is a good idea - for dog and human safety on busy pavements and roads, and hygiene around food areas etc.

·         Again, these seem like reasonable measures. Cemeteries are places for reflection and grieving. They’re not canine playgrounds. In the town centre dogs running free may well cause issues for traffic, disabled people, the elderly and so on.

Neutral

49

·         Dogs can be dangerous - no matter their size. People are entitled to walk and run without fear of "attack".

·         Only on one occasion at Sutton Road Cemetery have I come across a dog owner with their dogs off their leads, make me very wary.

·         Dogs off lead in public areas pose a huge risk to those with service dogs such as Guide Dogs

Go further

44

·         Should really be expanded to all village paths high streets.

·         As well as a fine, the dogs should be removed from the owners and a ban on them owning a dog should be implemented. might make them think about their actions in future.

·         Marden Parish Council - Can these measures be extended to all cemeteries in the Borough?

Always on leads

39

·         I think personally all dogs should be on leads all the time due to the rise in dog attacks on people and other dogs.

·         All dogs should be on a lead in any public space, not just those outlined above. There should be no exceptions to this.

·         Dogs should be kept on lead in all public places including parks, footpaths

Town Centre Parks & Open Spaces

19

·         The RSPCA understands the issue raised here and while we support measures to ensure human and dog safety in built up areas we would be concerned if any open spaces are included within the proposals to cover the whole town centre.

·         Whatman park is the local space for many dog owners and for their own mental health dogs should be allowed time off lead. I do think leads in the town centre are required with some provisions.

·         Definition of town centre not given. There are green spaces, riverside areas that many dogs are okay. Needs clarification.

Enforcement

16

·         How will you enforce the measure? What will the consequences be? Who will be paying court costs? What if the offender has no means to pay? Who will monitor costs versus benefit to Maidstone residents?

·         Would be good if this was enforced more as have seen lots of dogs off lead in the Sutton Road Cemetery.

·         This should be enforced otherwise it’s pointless There seem to be quite a few dogs off lead currently in the town centre.

Lead length

13

·         Objection to drafting definition at 4c. In favour of short lead but the drafting should allow for a dog being held on a short lead where a fixed lead is longer than 1.2 metres. If a 2 metre fixed lead (typical of the type used for training assistance dogs) is used it is not possible to "lock" it although it is possible to use it at a shorter length (by holding part way down, attaching both ends to the dog collar / harness, or wrapping round ones wrist several times). Suggest delete the word "(locked)" or change text to "held or locked".

·         1.2 meters is too long. I do not believe the use of extendable leads should be allowed.

·         Fixed leads should be used all the time and not extending leads as they do not give the control needed in a public place. And some members of the public may not adhere to locking them to a certain length.

Demographic Differences

The difference in the proportion of people responding positively to this question between dog owners and non-dog owners was significant with 96.1% of dog owners in favour of this measure compared to 98.5% of non-dog owners.

When compared to the other age groups, the 35 to 44 years group had a significantly lower proportion that were in favour of  continuing measure 4 at 90.7%, and a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to  continuing measure 4 than other age groups at 7.6%. There were no respondents in 18 to 34 years group that were opposed or unsure about continuing measure 4.

Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were not in favour of continuing measure 4 with 2.7% responding this way compared to 0.4% of economically inactive respondents.

Carer respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing with measure 4 with 3.8% answering this way compared to 1.2% of non-carer respondents.

Measure 4 – Total Comments 187

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Positive measure 4

49

·         Without this law there will be no control and bad owners will only get worse.

·         Too many attacks on sheep, cattle, swans, and ducks etc totally agree.

·         This measure is a good way of being inclusive, and providing assurance to people who are scared of are do not feel comfortable around dogs.

Enforcement

48

·         There are not enough PSPO to police this efficiently, we haven't got one that we know of since the last one was made redundant last year in me17 4 area. Also, they should be equipped with a bodycam & microchip reader so that troublesome Owners / Dogs can be ID'ed.

·         It’s no good having rules that are not enforced, in saying that it can be an emotive subject, using “Hobby Bobbies” or private security out on a power trip is not the way to go, reason and understanding MUST be employed, it better to gently educate than threats and bullying.

·         Would like to know who to call in these instances as frequently come across poorly controlled dogs and ignorant owners.

Always on leads

39

·         Dogs should be kept on leads all the time as it only takes a second for something to happen.

·         Dogs should be on a lead on all MBC lands streets, and parks. Until recently we owned a dog and kept it on a lead so not to annoy others.

·         So many people are now being attacked. Would be happy to see it made compulsory everywhere all the time, maybe harsh but these days necessary for public protection.

Neutral

33

·         Responsible dog owners should know their dogs and be able to control them.

·         Safety is important and people should be alert and keep a track on their dogs.

·         The webpages mention various signs that a dog is aggressive - raised hackles, snarling etc but this does not seem the right wording to use. A dog’s natural defence, or warning, should not label them as being aggressive or indicate that they may cause harm.

Other

13

·         amend to a non-extendable SHORT lead.

·         I would like to see fenced off lead areas for dogs to run.

·         Why does the request have to come from an authorised officer? If anyone feels threatened by a dog, why can't they request it is put on a lead.

Go further

12

·         If the owner refuses to comply, their right to ownership of any animal should be revoked.

·         All dogs in public places should have to wear a muzzle. Regardless the size of the dog. All too often you hear of dogs biting other dos / Children or adults trying to part fighting dogs. £500 fine if caught not wearing a muzzle.

·         If the owner won't comply the dog should be seized and destroyed.

Demographic Differences

The difference in the proportion of people responding positively to this question between dog owners and non-dog owners was significant with 99.1% of non-dog owners in favour of continuing with measure 5 compared to 95.1% of dog owners.

When compared to the other age groups, the 35 to 44 years group had a significantly lower proportion that were in favour of continuing measure 5 at 90.0%, and a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing measure 5 than other age groups at 5.0%. There were no respondents in 18 to 34 years group that were opposed to continuing measure 5.

Economically active respondents had a significantly lower proportion that were in favour of continuing measure 5 with 96.1% responding this way compared to 99.1% of economically inactive respondents.

Measure 5 – Total Comments -165

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Go further

42

·         The penalties for this offence should be much higher, in view of the number of serious attacks that have occurred across the country.

·         There is a need for registration of dogs similar to the old dog licence. Micro chipping should be compulsory as should insurance in case they cause accidents.

·         Other animals also need to be covered by this.

Neutral

40

·         People should not feel intimidated by dogs when going about their daily lives.

·         I’ve had on the occasion dogs coming up to my dog when off lead and owner hasn’t got the common sense to recall and think it's ok that their dog comes running away from owner.

·         As long as keeping a dog under control doesn't mean on a lead. My dogs are under proper control when they're off lead. They like to fetch their ball.

Positive – measure 5

35

·         Marden Parish Council - Continue the requirement for a person in charge of a dog to keep it under proper control, so as not to cause harm, "nuisance" or to stray.

·         Totally agree I had a confrontation in More Park with a young man whose dogs was off the lead and causing a nuisance.

·         This law is a basic requirement.

Enforcement

20

·         This could be a problem area, one person’s proper control versus the freedom to run of lead. The warden may need a body worn camera to prove his case.

·         This is never policed in Maidstone parks etc won’t go in park with my dog over weekends it’s a joke.

·         Stronger penalties, stronger enforcement please.

Discretion/ Accidental Straying/ Missing Dogs

12

·         I've got 3 dogs and I would do anything to protect them, but if they were frightened or startled why should I be or even my dogs be at fault?

·         There are always cases where a dog has managed to escape from a garden, e.g. delivery drivers not fully securing a door after visiting.

·         We have a disabled friend whose dog occasionally disappears briefly, returning within minutes. He is not in a position to pursue it. Again, prosecution would be harsh.

Other

10

·         I've put yes here. The drafting and application should follow the approach to "dangerousness" taken in Briscoe v Shattock, [1998] EWHC Admin 929.

·         Clearer definition of ‘proper control’.

·         Does this also include that they prove they have made sufficient effort to prevent their dog from escaping from their home or garden?

Demographic Differences

Dog owner respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to introducing a limit on the number of dogs being walked by a single, non-professional, person compared to non-dog owners: 16.0% of dog owners were opposed to this measure compared to 6.7% of non-dog owners.

Female respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were ‘Not sure’ about the introduction of this measure with 13.3% answering this way compared to 7.3% of male respondents.

Across the age groups the 18 to 34 years and the 35 to 44 years groups had significantly greater proportions that were opposed to the new measure, at 17.7% and 19.3% respectively, compared to the other age groups.

These groups also had significantly greater proportions that responded ‘Not sure’ at 15.7% and 14.3% respectively.

Economically active respondents had a significantly lower proportion that were in favour of introducing this measure with 74.2% responding this way compared to 87.0% of economically inactive respondents.

Economically active respondents also had a significantly greater proportion that responded ‘Not sure’ at 13.8% compared to 5.8% answering this way from the economically inactive group. 

Carer respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were in favour of introducing this measure with 87.0% answering this way compared to 75.3% of non-carer respondents.

13.6% of non-carers were opposed to introducing a limit a of the number of dogs being walked by a single person, this was significantly greater than the proportion carers that responded this way where 5.4% were opposed.

A significantly greater proportion of respondents from minority groups were in favour of introducing a limit on the number of dogs being walked by one person with 93.2% answering this way compared top 77.6% of white group respondents.

12.0% of white group respondents were opposed to this measure, significantly greater than respondents from minority groups where 1.4% were opposed.

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Mode

Median

Mean

1

20

19

2

3

3.02

Measure 6 – Total Comments 364

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Size/Breed of dog

118

·         Depends on the dogs and the walker. Walking 5 chihuahuas is different to 5 mastiffs. Stop this nanny state targeting of dog owners.

·         It is difficult to stipulate a specific number of dogs that could be walked by a single person as it really depends on the size and breed of dog. I think there should be a limit of some sort, however.

·         This is difficult as a lot depends on the breed and size of a dog and the competence of the owner/dog walker.

Neutral

66

·         The Covid pandemic saw an increase in the local dog population. We have seen a growing trend of walking several dogs at the same time.

·         I had three Labradors, and all were lead trained and no problem to keep under control at all times.

·         Dogs can quickly form a pack mentality if over excited or provoked and walker must be able to regain control preventing harm.

Max limit two

58

·         I cannot see how one person can control more than 2 dogs. They cannot see where they are fouling and if another dog approached, they would act together to protect themselves or their owner.

·         If the one dog, you have is a lively/big breed that can require some effort to keep under control. I do not think walking more than 2 dogs at the same time is a safe exercise, qualified or not.

·         They have 2 hands for 2 leads.

Professional Walkers

37

·         Clearly if professionals have a safe limit, that should at least be replicated for non-professionals.

·         Is a 'dog walker' a professional? Many are not trained and walk several dogs at a time.

·         If DEFRA states 6 dogs are allowed by professionals, I don't suppose you have the power to override them, but it seems far too many dogs to control.

Max limit three

23

·         Maximum of three should include registered dog walkers as well to avoid any public confusion.

·         I haven't ever witnessed owners or dog walkers with multiple dogs being unable to control them. I wonder whether 3 dogs maximum might be better?

·         I fail to see how one person can control any more than 3 dogs.

Negative – measure 6

18

·         I currently own 4 dogs and I am able to walk these off lead and under control. They are my pets and I have trained them proper. I do not see how restricting the number of dogs will help. I have seen people who have 1 dog have less control than I have over my 4. This will not stop that.

·         There should be no limit. One dog out of control can cause just as much mayhem.

·         No some people have a few dogs, and they should be able to walk them together I have only 1 dog.

Max limit four

17

·         Any more than 4 becomes a pack and control is very difficult.

·         We (Chart Sutton Parish Council) also feel that the maximum number of dogs a professional dog walker can walk at any one time should also be limited to 4.

·         Any more than 4 dogs being held by one person makes it impossible for the walker to be in complete control. Two in each hand is more than enough.

Max limit one

14

·         Unless a trained dog walker then only one at a time.

·         Controlling more than one dog can be virtually impossible if they each respond to different stimuli from different directions.

Always on lead

14

·         Dogs should be kept on a lead at all times when on council grounds and facilities. Professional dog walkers often have up to 10 dogs running free. There is no way the handler can control them all or clean up after them all!

·         As long as all dogs that a person has are on a lead and is capable of control those dogs then no problem

Positive – measure 6

11

·         This would help the safety of the dog walker as well as the general public.

·         I think this is a sensible measure but there are many contextual issues which complicate it - for example 3 large dogs may be too much, but 3 toy dogs would be manageable.

Demographic Differences

Non-Dog owners had a significantly greater proportion that were in favour of continuing with the requirement to provide a name and an address to an authorised officer, when requested to do so: 95.6% of non- dog owners were in favour of continuing the requirement compared to 90.6% of dog owners.

Female respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were uncertain about continuing with this requirement with 5.1% responding this way compared to 1.7% of male respondents.

Respondents aged 35 to 44 years had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing this requirement compared to all other age groups with 9.2% responding this way.

Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were uncertain about continuing with this requirement with 4.6% responding this way compared to 1.4% of economically inactive respondents.

While there were no respondents from minority groups that were opposed to continuing this requirement this group had a significantly greater proportion that responded ‘Not sure’ with 10.8% answering this way compared to 2.9% answering the same from white groups.

Failure to provide a name and address – Total Comments 160

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Positive

49

·         I think this is a reasonable measure just in case there should be an incident involving a dog.

·         Vital - then if there are repeat offences this can be followed up hopefully and escalated to higher penalties.

·         Responsible members of the public are unlikely to have a problem with this.

Enforcement

39

·         Maybe enforcement officers could be provided with equipment to read microchips in dogs. This might aid identification of owners.

·         I agree but where are the enforcement officers?

·         I don't trust authorities to keep the name and address confidential, or officer to be professional at this stage. Therefore, questionable for such activity. However, I think chipping dog should be compulsory, so Authorities don't need ask the person, but just read the chip.

Go further

20

·         Should reintroduce dog licence as too many irresponsible dog owners do not take responsibility for dog’s behaviours.

·         Essential for them to do their job. Increase penalties for no compliance

Overstepping

18

·         I thought only a police officer had a right to request someone's details.

·         It is a fundamental breach of the principles of law and order in the UK.

Reliability

13

·         But since we don’t have ID cards what’s to stop anyone lying? I can see this leading to the Authorised person suffering abuse from some!

·         How can the giving of false details be prevented? Is there a need to provide some ID?

Dog details

13

·         The dog should have a tag with this info.

·         All dogs to be chipped. A wave of a wand will then be able to determine owner details. If owner details are not up to date they face possible high fine (up to £2,000 for first offence, greater if second or more repeated offence) or even suspension of retaining the dog indefinitely if failing to comply.

Neutral

10

·         If people knew there was an enforceable penalty, then they would behave better!

·         Dog owners/walkers must be responsible for their dog charges.

Demographic Differences

The 18 to 34 years group had the lowest proportion in favour of continuing with the current FPN of £100 at 76.5%. This is significantly lower than the proportions that answered this way from the 35 to 44 years and the 55 to 64 years groups where 84.9% and 87.6% answered this way respectively.

Carer respondents had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing with the current FPN rate with 19.8% answering this way compared to 11.5% of non-carers.

Respondents with a disability had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing with the current FPN rate with 22.6% answering this way compared to 11.8% of non-disabled respondents.

Respondents from minority groups had a significantly greater proportion that were opposed to continuing with the current FPN rate with 31.0% answering this way compared to 12.7% of respondents from white groups.

Fixed Penalty Notices – Total Comments 288

Theme

No.

Examples & Sentiment

Higher Fines

180

·         The FPN Should be increased. I have no means of judging a punitive FPN, but I believe it should be one that causes the dog owner to seriously consider their responsibility to their dog and to the community!

·         I think the FPN should be raised to £250. I don’t think £100 is any deterrent to those with antisocial and environmental crimes.

·         Should be higher and if they can't pay, they can't afford to own a dog.

·         As a dog owner and dog lover, it is the behaviour of irresponsible owners which causes problems. I feel that the fines should be increased to at least £500.

Go further / harsher penalty

32

·         Ok for fouling, but when dogs aren't on leads or under proper control and present a threat to people or other pets or wildlife a financial penalty isn't sufficient.

·         Should only be for first offence, if the person breaches the rules again, they should always be prosecuted.

·         If a person collects additional fines, they should increase. I think 3 fines is sufficient for the dog to be removed from its owner. This person should be classed as a negligent owner. And possibly refused ownership of any future dogs.

Lower fines

19

·         The fixed fine of £100 is very heavy handed and can be viewed as income stream. Better to educate and have graduated fines based on ability to pay.

·         I think maybe a bit less due to cost of living, those that can't afford it just won't pay.

Enforcement

18

·         The penalty amount is not the issue, the problem is how rarely it is used. And it would be interesting to learn whether fines have ever been issued in Langley.

·         Please make known how many FPN's have been issued to date.

Positive

17

·         Reasonable amount if dog offends to be a deterrent against not being a responsible dog owner or handler.

·         Keeping the current FPN to £100 is best as times are hard and we don't want dogs abandoned when owners cannot pay fine

Neutral

12

·         You are assuming that everyone will willingly give their details and even assuming they give correct details how do you check.

·         FPNs should be raised periodically to reflect inflation.