Dog owners again
Comments
-
"Or maybe the problem isn't that bad and we keep things the way they are?"
one of your. pals....
1 -
Isn't suggesting "the problem is not that bad and leave things as they are" Ignoring it?
1 -
not at all, the way things are at the moment is that wardens will deal with any accidents with dogs and owners as they see them or are reported to them. I have certainly seen this in practice and has been reported on CT in the past.
If you read my post in it's entirety rather than post one sentence you will see that I was talking about the complications of introducing a system whereby wardens start giving out and/or recording 'warnings' to those caught offending and their subsequent eviction/loss of bookings for those persistent offenders.
2 -
Really? That says ignoring the issue, does it? I thought your grasp of the English language was better than that, BB.
My 'pals', as you call them, are free thinking individuals who often agree. Do you not know anyone like that?
7 -
Sadly the urge to put in the paragraph about poo wardens seemed rather mocking and diluted any of your other points.
I would say that wardens would not witness most incidents, as they don't start work until most animals have done their business, and finish before the evening toilet trips.
1 -
so you are saying that because I had a 'mocking' paragraph that gave you the right to mis-represent and mis-coxtext (is that a word?) my post? Fair enough I suppose if that's what you want to do
well mocking or not my points were still valid I believe.
Also if as you say wardens don't see any accidents are you agreeing that BB's plan wouldn't work? Anyway thank you for a further point against it.
2 -
Is this still rumbling on...........even the dog is bored by it all now....
3 -
-
Oh dear, Tinny.....
0 -
Whilst I agree with BM's observation re: wardens not being around to catch too many, the 'plan' (not mine, as others have suggested a firmer line is necessary) was to do something meaningful about those they do catch....
i just don't see why the club's authority on site can't take the responsibility to deal with those who are 'caught'...in a way where everyone knows what that action will be.....
From this, and other 'dog' threads I thought the responsible majority decried the irresponsible minority (not wishing to be tarred with the same brush) and also wanted something done, is this not the case?
2 -
Those caught aren't likely to post it on here....nor in an artical in the mag...
0 -
I think you are correct in that something should be done, not just with this but actually any infringement of club rules, after all it is not a pleasant experience for other campers but it's difficult to know what exactly to do, it is a holiday camp after all? One offence, two? And I am at a loss to suggest anything so at least you suggested something which is more than I did. If caught certainly a word explaining why it should not be done would be in order and yes after repeated offending it is obvious that this camper cares nothing for others or club rules and should be asked to leave, but how to do that? Even If a pitch has lots of 'evidence' are they from the dog on that pitch?
Education or prevention is better than cure?
But it is a relatively small problem, so far.
1 -
Goodness, what’s wrong, BoBo?
2 -
I must bow to your expertise in mis-representation.
2 -
If It wasn't a CMC site then ........it must have been far , far away ....I'm only speculating of course .👍 I fail to see why the loss of income needs to be mentioned also 😉....
0 -
0
-
Its also worth recognize that this was a privately owned site and the owner who expelled them was actually going to lose money from her own pocket by doing so.
is that because the expelled campers would have paid at the end of their stay? Another plus for paying up front then, evict them and keep their money?
1 -
Not related to a dog incident, but we have seen someone evicted off a Club Site. The Wardens had had enough and were taking no prisoners that day. So it does happen. But an incident has to be witnessed and beyond doubt, and of sufficient seriousness to warrant such action.
Personally, I would have no issue with a few CC cameras dotted around Club Sites at strategic points. Well advertised, and placed looking at locations that might be "issue" areas, they might deter the occasional bit of unsocial behaviour by the few speeders, idle dog walkers etc... If the Club has cut staffing levels at some sites, which it clearly has, then it needs to provide some method of monitoring behaviour in an alternative way. Still relies upon someone looking at images, but at least if something is reported, then it could be checked out via recorded images. I know and understand that some will have issues with CC cameras, but we are well used to staying on farms with CLs who use them for overall security. Can't see the problem if you behave yourself?
5 -
And still the thread rumbles on caused by those in denial that there is a problem with antisocial dog owners. ------ Just accept that it happens and that not all dog owners are antisocial, the majority obey the site rules. It's really quite straightforward.
K
0 -
I'm curious about this favourite phrase of yours "those in denial", K. Care to elaborate by giving any example of a post claiming that there is no problem at all with "anti social dog owners".
The thread rumbles on because, despite, as I pointed out several pages ago, there being widespread agreement between owners and non-owners alike, a small number on both sides persist in keeping it going and attempting to blame the "other side".
I agree completely with your last two sentences, by the way, time to accept that it happens, something (but what?) should be done about it and put this thread to bed.
2
