Below provides any specific comments or feedback on the proposals: No. Response Text 1 I am horrified that I , as a responsible member of the Fylde community to have been presented with this consultation. My view is that the elected members of Fylde Borough Council should seek to promote the collective wishes of the electorate, not to promote their own personal agendas. The manner with which the PSPOs have been proposed is disgraceful. I am also unable to see the benefits that the proposed restrictions will provide, or how they will solve the problems the loaded questions in the survey suggest. To begin, I was schooled in Lytham, I settled in Lytham, I have raised my family in Lytham, I run my business from Lytham and I vote in Lytham. As a resident, I have taken full advantage of the facilities our wonderful town offers: I have walked on the Green, and throughout the town; I've had pinics on the Green with my parents and children; I've used Lytham as my running track; I've cycled around the town. My children have: played in the "play areas" provided by the council; learned to ride their bikes on the Green; have grown up in a safe and inclusive community. There has NEVER been an issue with dogs, dog owners or dog walkers. I am a dog owner and I take that responsibility seriously. I clear up after my dog, I wouldn't walk my dog near the road without him being on a lead and I would always keep my dog under control in busy areas. I have found that the vast majority of dog owners that I have come into contact with (and there are many) have the same view as I. So why is the council seeking to criminalise a significant proportion of the the electorate? Working through the consultation, the initial sections (Questions 1 to 27) seek to impose new restrictions without any objective evidence. Responsible dog owners and walkers consider where they take their dogs and the potential impact that they may have on their environment. Question 28 seems to be aimed specifically at professional dog walkers. These people provide a service to the community. Responsible dog owners would not use the services of dog walkers who were not able to control their charge of dogs. Where is the evidence that these people are allowing unruly packs of dogs to run amok? Question 30 asks if I am a regular visitor. Has the council considered the impact the proposed restrictions would have on the local economy? I have met many responsible dog owners who travel to Lytham, to exercise their dogs, most of whom then continue to avail themselves of the goods and services of the local shops, cafes and restaurants. In turn these businesses pay council tax. Constraining the market for these businesses will reduce their viability and consequently they may fail and reduce FBC's revenue. I am aware of the DEFRA guidelines for dog ownership and the associated responsibilities. Dogs need to be able to run free, to play and exercise. Reducing the areas where this is possible can only result in a higher number of unsocialised animals, thus causing more significant problems. Many elderly people have dogs and take great solace from their companionship. Dog ownership provides them with a reason to exercise on a regular basis. In many cases, these people are unable to travel with their animals to less restrictive areas. Does the Council seek to take this away? Finally, there are many existing rules regarding penalties for dog fouling and dangerous animals which do not seem to be enforced at the momment. How, in reality, does the Council believe that by increasing the number of regulations anything will change? At the end of the day, a responsible dog owner already respects the community they live in. Irresponsible dog owners ignore the current rules and are therefore unlikely to change. By all means punish the irresponsible, but DO NOT criminalise the vast majority. You could even try working with the majority to agree a sensible way forward. 2 Other than those areas I have supported I believe the proposals for PSPOs are not justified & as a resident see no reason for them to be introduced. I have not seen any justifiable evidence in the past or believe there are real concerns in the future for them to be introduced. It's feels a bit like getting a sledgehammer to crack a nut! I am also concerned over the impact it would have on local business and tourism if they were to be introduced. I recommend the council to continue to support our community and area to be viewed by the vast numbers of public as being a dog friendly area. 3 Dogs should be allowed anywhere so long as the owner/Walker of the dog/s are responsible and leash there dogs when appropriate I.e if they know their dog will chase/attack wildlife then they should be leashed. Penalising all dog and dog owners because of the irresponsible few is not the way forward. Dog fouling is a big problem so I fully support fines etc for irresponsible owners that don't clean up after their pets. 4 What are beaches and parks for if not to be enjoyed by all, and that includes dogs off leads? Ill thought out proposals by a council working against the people. Victimisation of law abiding residents with dogs. Uncomfortable with dog wardens being able to issue fixed penalty notices. Should be only done by police and courts. Erosion of civil liberties. Limit on number of dogs ridiculous. 'Big Brother' Fylde Council. Opposes Animal Welfare Act of 2006. Moving towards a 'police state'. 5 Draconian measures from a council working against the wishes of its residents. Waste of law abiding tax payers money. An exercise in raising money for a council who cannot manage their finances adequately. Disproportionate measures for a conceived problem that does not exist. Biased questionnaire. Ridiculous proposals mean an increase in carbon footprint driving to Council designated areas. Think global warming. Beauty of living on Fylde Coast means beach and grassed areas easily accessible to all. Should be free of restrictions. Let's all exist happily together and combat obesity and ill health. Wardens with minimal training should not be able to issue fixed penalty notices. Only courts and police should have this power. 6 I am shocked at these proposals. Dogs off lead do not disturb birds, I was speaking to all the birdwatchers who descended here recently to look at a rare bird and asked if they thought my dogs disturbed the birds and was assured that birds take very little notice of dogs . I own several small dogs and will have to take them out in two batches which means extra impact on the environment as I drive to North Beach. The regular walkers all pick up after their dogs, the main offenders are casual visitors who will continue to take no notice of any rules. The dunes are awash with empty bottles, cans and in the summer barbeque trays and this will not change. I can see that the council just sees this as a revenue stream without considering the implications to local businesses as there are a lot of people who come to the town because it is dog friendly. Additionally it seems impossible to actually police properly unless you propose to hire an army of wardens patrolling at all times which would immediately bump up your costings. The restrictions on the beach seem senseless and very difficult for people to comprehend where the boundaries are. I have walked my dogs here for over 20 years with no problems but one effect of your proposas will be to funnel people towards the North Beach area which could lead to problems. I live in Ansdell and people constantly let their dogs foul in the alley but they know nobody will ever take action so responsible dogs owners like me take the blame for a minority of ignorant people who will never stop. The television interview where one your councillors said people cannot picnic on the Green was embarrassing, there are dozens of people picnicking on there every fine day in summer, if that is all she could think of then the generally held belief that certain councillors have an anti dog agenda seems to be correct. Shame on you all Fylde Council. 7 Dogs need exercise, including off lead, so I think it is wrong to make it difficult for people to exercise their dogs. Lack of exercise can lead to troublesome behaviour. I realise some people are irresponsible with their dogs, but most are responsible, and shouldn't be penalised for the behaviour of a few. It should be remembered that people bring their dogs on holiday, it wouldn't be very welcoming for them to see so many restrictions and threats of fines. 8 Disproportionate proposals in respect of the very small problem posed a small minority not picking up after their dogs. Using a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Unfair restrictions placed on responsible dog owners. Target the few not the many. Waste of tax payers money. Don't criminalise dog owners. Much larger problems in the area, litter, anti social behaviour, vandalism, lack of funding for social care. Money making exercise for an inadequate council. Giving too much power to ' little Hitler's' dog wardens with minimal training. Object to Council imposing draconian laws on dog owners.