DOG WALKERS have become exasperated with ongoing restrictions in the New Forest.
Many claim that their pets are becoming ill from lack of exercise because the Forestry Commission is insisting dogs are kept on short leads at all times and preventing them from running free.
This follows months when walkers had to drive 20 to 30 miles a day to find an alternative exercise route when the Forest was closed due to foot and mouth. One walker estimates she drove a total of 4,000 miles while the foot and mouth epidemic raged. And now one of the nearest alternatives of exercise, the beaches, have also been closed to dogs for the summer season.
The Commission says dogs must remain on leads because of the perceived foot and mouth risk imposed by dogs to livestock. But there is a suggestion that the Commission may want an all-round ban on dogs being allowed to run free in the Forest. In recent years restrictions have been imposed on exercising dogs off leads in areas where there are ground-nesting birds between March and July. Many dog walkers claim that these birds are more at risk if there are no dog walkers to deter natural predators.
The walkers complain that dogs are being singled out, as the Commission has lifted almost all restrictions on other visitors such as walkers, cyclists, horse riders, campers and caravanners, who, now that all the car parks are open again, are allowed free access.
The Commission's communications manager, Helen Wood, is reported as saying:
"For the time being dogs must be kept on a short lead under tight control and away from livestock on the Forest.
"We must all stay alert to the threat posed by people's pets. It is vital that they are kept away from livestock to prevent any spread of the foot and mouth virus. A natural reaction between dogs and cattle when they meet up is to square up to each other nose to nose. It is a perfect transmission route for the disease."
She told Dog World: "We are acting on advice from Ministry vets who have said dogs must be kept on leads, that's all."
The protesting dog walkers have formed the New Forest Dog Owners Group, which is to hold a public meeting on July 3. There will be at least three prominent speakers present, including a solicitor, a vet and an ornithologist.
Chairman of the group is Pauline Ludlow of Brockenhurst, Hampshire, whose phone has been Ored hot' in the weeks since news broke that the group had been formed to fight the dog walkers' corner.
"I have lived in the forest for 46 years and have always exercised my Labradors there," she said. "I was horrified when I heard the rumour that the Commission was going to continually exclude dogs from the forest.
"It's not natural for dogs to be constantly on a lead. Since the foot and mouth restrictions I've travelled miles in the car to places where I could exercise them off the lead.
"We, the locals, are always helpful to the Commission, informing them of anything untoward, such as a ill  animal, when we walk our dogs in the forest. Perhaps the Commission doesn't realise the implications of not having dog walkers around.
"As for claims that dogs may attack livestock, the incidences of this are very rare indeed, particularly compared to the number of animals killed on forest roads."
Her views are supported by a group of vets who wrote to the local newspaper, the New Forest Post, with their opinion on the controversy.
The letter, written by vets from five practices, said: "We are very proud of how local dog owners have complied with the very severe (foot and mouth) restrictions on exercising their dogs over the last four months... However, we feel the proposal that these restrictions should continue indefinitely should be assessed in the light of the following points."
Among these were that there has never been a case of foot and mouth where the source of infection was traced to either deer or ramblers and that it is overly difficult to transmit the disease to native deer. Almost all cases in the present outbreak have been caused by either infected animals moving from one farm to another or people and vehicles moving from one farm to another without observing simple rules for cleansing and disinfection.
"Thirdly," the letter said, "our concern is for the health and welfare of all the animals for which we have responsibility, not only farm animals but also dogs. We believe the present severe restrictions on the exercising of dogs is causing serious health and welfare problems.
"We have had reported to us very few cases of accidental worrying of livestock on the forest over the last 20 years. There are cases of deliberate worrying, some we believe associated with poaching, however, we do not believe that any new laws will affect the incidence of such
deliberate attacks.
"We believe that not only do a large number of tourists come to the Forest because they wish to exercise their dogs off a lead, but also a significant number of people who move into this area do so for this reason. We are concerned that a blanket ban on exercising dogs off leads will seriously damage the already fragile economy of the area."

Curious!

The Commission has said that although foot and mouth is a declining problem, there have been several new cases, and it considers dogs to be a particular problem because they tend to be curious about cattle and this is reciprocated, and for this reason owners are being relied upon to keep the dogs under control to prevent close contact.
Walkers are worried that the restrictions currently being imposed in the forest could become law within a few years when the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act is implemented.
A spokesman from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said this week that a mapping process was currently taking place, under which all newly-accessible pieces of land would be categorised.
"It will take some years before the new legislation is in place," the spokesman said. "But the idea is to open up most land ever to be walked on.
"There will be some restrictions on dogs going on the new land, but the purpose we are trying to get a balance between protection of the land and safety of farm animals and the enjoyment of people walking their pets."
Asked whether the restrictions set down under CROW could apply to already accessible land, he said: "I can't speculate on the mapping process but there will be extensive consultation when proposals have been drawn up and people will be able to comment then. Neither can I see any reason why areas of land already open would be re-evaluated.
"It will take years rather than weeks before it comes into place."
Nevertheless, it is almost certain that if dogs are allowed on the newly-accessible land ­ described as mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land ­ it will be on short leads, probably only for a few months each year while been banned for the rest.
 The legislation will give local authorities and other groups the power to ban dogs entirely. Former Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Meacher, said last year: "There will be strict restrictions on dogs."
Ms Wood said there had been a lot of scaremongering, confusion and rumour concerning the CROW Act's effect on the New Forest.
"People have been saying that the Commission is going to ban dogs for ever and ever. But we can't speculate what will happen until the mapping process has finished and everything has been decided.
"We are working with the Countryside Agency over the Act and it will be down to them and the legislation what happens in the future."
A spokesman from the Commission's head office in Scotland said: "We are asking people to keep their dogs on leads at the moment but I'm not sure what the position is long term.
"We still have foot and mouth in the country and this is the guidance we are getting from the agriculture department ­ that is as far as it goes.
"We are not in a position to be able to comment about the CROW Act. We will have to look at the legislation and see what the implications are. We have no plans one way or the other."
David Webster, chairman of Christchurch and New Forest CS, said the current restrictions have caused considerable concern.
"During the foot and mouth precautions dog walkers were reasonably asked to keep their dogs on leads," he said. "However, this is feared to be the thin edge of the wedge, leading to dogs being permanently banned throughout the year.
"Why are we being forced to keep our dogs on leads when there are tourists, cyclists, bird watchers and horse riders all over the forest and the risks of the disease in unaffected areas is considered to be minimal?"
"Lots of people are rallying support down here and everyone who speaks to any of the officials gets a different story," said Christine Woodall.

Picknicking

"The angle they are taking is that dogs approach livestock ­ they couldn't get near, they disturb wildlife ­ as if riders, cyclists and picknicking families don't, and spread foot and mouth ­ although you can bring your caravan from anywhere in the UK to the various camps in the heart of the forest."
Finuala Barnes said she had been happy to keep her dogs on leads during the foot and mouth crisis.
"We don't want foot and mouth in the forest," she said, "but the restrictions are no longer appropriate.
"There is nowhere to let our dogs run free ­ the beaches are closed ­ and my Welsh Springers are going mad."
Sally Sanford said the restrictions were stupid.
"Bylaws already exist to force people to keep dogs under proper control in the forest, but there hasn't been the willpower or manpower to enforce them," she said.
"They appear to think the solution is to introduce more laws and penalise those of us who do keep our dogs under control.
"Unfortunately there will always be a minority who do allow dogs to cause problems, and it would be stupid to suggest that they did not cause some disturbance. This new law is more likely to make the irresponsible few move out to more remote areas of the forest and continue to exercise their dogs off lead but in more sensitive areas."
"We have been dealt a double whammy," said Penny Gayler. "It would appear that under CROW, and in order to secure their right to roam', the ramblers have signed away under this Act our right to let dogs off lead in the vicinity of livestock.
"In addition to this the Commission is trying to add a proviso that because of ground-nesting birds all dogs must be kept on a lead no longer than two metres from March 1 to July 31 every year. In other words there will be five months of absolute control followed by seven months of limited restriction, and together they constitute a considerable change in present practice.
"Although this is devastating for us in the forest who own dogs and love to see them run free, this Act will affect all dogs walkers everywhere. Moves are already being made here to try to prevent these draconian measures but you should all be aware that this could happen in your area."
The meeting of the Dog Owners group will be held at the Lyndhurst Park Hotel
on Tuesday July 3 at 7.30pm. All are welcome.

^Top