Dogs in the Rest Garden

[Bob Young]

Ben:
Much as I would like to start debating with you some of these niceties of phraseology, I am (at the earnest request of those around me) going onto a strict NO SNGSA-ing regime for a few days in order to preserve my sanity.
I hope you understand.
More later ...
-- Bob.

[TonyD]

It's a Rest garden, short for Garden of Rest. Every Garden of Rest i have ever visited has been free of drunks, drug addicts, campers, frolicking teenagers, barbecues...and dogs.
Ours was not quite like that but, with its memorial benches and trees (my wife and i both planted a tree for dead parents) it was pretty close...until three years ago when the council stopped locking it at night. This was the start of what I see as a tragic decline.
Someone on here, i think it was Janet, seems to think it's pretty wet to want a really peaceful Rest Garden in the middle of a very noisy city. It has to be maximised, exploited, done over, trampled on, played in, promoted, used and, in my view, abused.
Quiet places are rare if not totally absent from Central Brighton. I think it would makes us very special indeed if we tried to have one.

[BenR]

Tony, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. But you're not arguing for banning responsible dog owners; you're arguing for banning drunks, drug addicts, campers, frolicking teenagers, barbecues...and dogs. I don't think that's actually possible. And just banning responsible dog owners won't achieve what you seek.

I don't think it's wet to want a really peaceful garden in the middle of the noisy city. I doubt if Janet does either, and she certainly hasn't expressed that view: if you read her post, what she's actually criticising is the fantasy that if only there were no dogs, that's what the rest garden would be. Perhaps it's a tribute to the work of the gardeners and other volunteers associated with SNCGSA that the rest garden is so far from that.

When I was in the rest garden yesterday morning (Sunday) there were people setting up a substantial party (two gazebos, several tables, bunting, balloons and gas cylinder, barbecue, coolers...); someone dumping kit that looked as though they were going to set up a tightrope, which may or may not have been associated with the party (or perhaps just inspired by Man on Wire?); some kids playing cricket; some young people who seemed to be preparing to build a willow sculpture (?); and a couple of lone readers/picnickers with blankets/baskets/bicycles etc.

On the scale of disturbance to the peaceful enjoyment of others, the dog and I were fourth or fifth at worst. In terms of the space we occupied, we were at the back of the queue. (And this was without the 'house' gang of teenagers!)

The only 'hounding' I saw was of dogs, not by them - in the time I was there I saw two couples come in with dogs, each of whom were effectively chased out by the hostile response of the party people.

One of the things I really resent about the campaign against responsible dog owners is the way that we're being used as whipping boys for things that have no necessary connection to dogs (such as the gate, which by the sound of it you actually want to keep shut anyway) or where dogs are just the accessible target (ie of all the things that were in the garden yesterday, dogs - and perhaps the barbecue element of the party - are the only things that could be forbidden). Just because it's possible to ban responsible dog owners, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. It certainly won't create the haven you imagine.

Ben

[Karim Hyatt]

Well, I guess what I stepped in the other day was just a fictional dog poo then. Certainly didn't smell like it.

[BenR]

Eh? I think you're wrong there. Probably only fictional characters can step in "fictional dog poo".

Or was this meant as a clever way of implying that anyone has suggested that there's no dog poo in the rest garden? I don't think anyone's suggested that, did I miss it?

I've certainly seen real dog poo in the rest garden, and picked it up (not just from my dog, I mean). I see lots of litter there, and as I'm wandering around following the dog, pick up a fair amount of that too - lots of the dog walkers do.

So what's your point? Some users of the gardens leave mess - poo from their dogs, rubbish from their picnics, etc. Some users clear up after themselves, and occasionally even clear up after others. I think we know all that.

My point is that 'banning dogs' will deter people who obey regulations, and have some consideration for other people. People who obey that sign will more likely be people who clear up after their dogs. It won't deter the people who always took their dogs in there. The people who will still take their dogs in to the rest garden are less likely to clear up after them.

[Karim Hyatt]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I firmly believe that some areas should be dog-free and you don't. I don't see it as a problem, and I refuse to take my dog in the rest garden. The churchyard is good enough for her. From my conversations with people, they don't object to people enjoying the park (whatever they do), but they do strongly object to dogs. My fear is that there will be a strong backlash against dogs which will make all central parks no-go areas. This is what the new by-laws were meant to do. Further insistence that dogs can go anywhere they please will not endear them to the vast majority who don't own/don't like/can't stand dogs.

If the central parks are made no-go areas for dogs, I'd have to move, as my house doesn't have a garden. There already have been complaints at council level. How far do you want this to go?

Anyhow, as I said, this thread is going nowhere and I've now said everything I have to say on the matter.