Robert Russell, BSc (Hons), Animal Behaviour & Welfare, of Mayflower Close, Dartmouth, writes:

I would like to comment on the article concerning dog ­fouling, Chronicle, April 1.

First, let me hold my hand up and say I am a dog owner and walker, I do not have children and so I am slightly biased. However, I do try to see the issue from both sides.

My first issue is the use of deliberate, inflammatory ­language at the start of the piece. There are no ‘out-of-control dogs’, so why choose that phrase? The article is about dog walkers and the mess they cause.

I use the term dog walkers because all too often I see teenagers or younger walking a dog with no parental ­supervision. This is particularly prevalent in school holidays. The youngsters walking the dog have little or no control over it and they certainly do not always clean up. I am aware that not every parent ensures their child knows they need to clean up behind them, or even make sure they have bags to do so. I have often given bags to youngsters, who in my opinion do not have control of the dog and should not have been allowed to take them out in the first place.

I accept that there is an issue with a small minority of people not cleaning up behind their dogs. I will not even try to defend those responsible because there is no excuse.

I will, however, defend the right of all dog walkers to walk their dogs in and around town.

While I can only offer my sympathy to Ms Childs, her son could as easily cut his hand on broken glass, tin or any other rubbish left lying in the

park. Coronation Park has a ­dedicated children’s play area, and while I can understand that not every parent or child may want to use that area, they do have a choice. Dog walkers do not have such have a choice – there is no dog-only area in Dartmouth. Incidentally, the only other area where you can exercise a dog freely in town would be the Community Orchard, which like Coronation Park is a mixed-occupancy area.

With the greatest respect to Cllr de Galleani, there is no bylaw that says dogs are not permitted on the grass in Royal Garden Avenue. The District of South Hams Fouling of Land by Dogs Order 2013 contains no such clause. The District of South Hams Dog Exclusion Order 2013 contains the following restrictions: ‘All land within the council’s administrative area comprising:

*Any fenced, hedged or walled children’s play area.

*Any fenced, hedged or walled bowling green.

*Any fenced, hedged or walled tennis court.

*Any fenced, hedged or walled skateboard or BMX park.

*Any fenced, hedged or walled putting green.

*Any sporting or recreational facility pitch when sport is in play.

*Beaches or foreshore signed by the council at its entrance(s) as a “dog exclusion area” and included within the district of South Hams.

*Dog Exclusion Order (Beaches) 2013 and its accompanying schedules, plus any other beaches that the authority may wish to include in this order from time to time.’

As you can see, Royal Avenue Gardens are not included in this order, nor can I find any other order that excludes dogs from being on the grass in said area. I have also asked South Hams Council how many public spaces protection orders – dog control orders became obsolete on October 20, 2014, and will be phased out completely by October 20, 2017 – are in place for Dartmouth and where they exist.

I have a phone message from John Ward, the senior case manager at the district council, received March 4, 2016, saying that there are no PSPOs in Dartmouth or its surrounding area. In fact, he goes on to say that there are no PSPOs ­anywhere in the South Hams.

Dogs on long leads are not ‘running amok’, as suggested, but in fact the opposite applies, because if a dog is on a long lead it can be recalled, whereas one running free might not always respond to being called – they do have minds of their own and once engaged in something can be stubborn about coming back.

Again, it is the walker being lax in controlling the dog and keeping their charge away from the flowerbeds.

I would ask Cllr Harris where he would suggest people who live in town exercise their dogs. Moreover, before he ­suggests Coronation Park, how are people supposed to get there if they cannot walk their dogs through part of the town?

I applaud Cllr Pritchard for having a common sense view and realising that not all dog walkers are irresponsible.

The majority of dog walkers I know would agree with Cllr Bell about naming and ­shaming. A Torquay paper has an ‘around the courts’ section each week informing readers about court cases, so it should be ­feasible for the Chronicle to list any dog walkers who have been caught and fined. I know the law does not allow for it now, but I also think the fines should rise every time a person is caught reoffending.

Cllr Barnes is wrong in his assumption that it is always local people – holidaymakers do not always clean up in the assumption that it is not their town so it does not matter. If, as he claims, he knows four ­people who do not clean up, why has he not reported it? Why has he not collected ­evidence to back up the claim?

A final thought: as far as I am aware, the town centre area, including Royal Garden Avenue, are covered extensively by CCTV cameras, so why do the authorities not make more use of that to catch the few ­people who are making life for everyone, dog walker and non-dog walker, a misery?