Lost Login Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 If you don't know whether that bloke down the road is the dog poop patrol or just some random passer by, are you going to chance it? FFS this is the IoM. The police got a couple of unmarked cars a few years ago and everybody new about them in a matter of weeks. Same thing would happen and it would not take long for everybody to know who they were. The only objection I can see you have to this is that you are one of those indivuals who does not clean up after their dog. Well start saving for the fines as provided the costs are nor prohibitive I can see no reason not to introduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aghtal Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 The way I read it was the dog enforcement officer has cost £14,000 for 4 years or £3,500 per year not £14,000 a year...! There is no way any local authority on the Island has one employee costing £14k assigned to checking for dog crap. Get real..! As Lost Login says, once the system is up & running it should be cost neutral. If you know you are going to get caught you will pick up, therefore there is not a problem. If you don't pick up you will get caught, therefore fines will cover costs and deter others. As for collecting the offending "samples" all local authorities and the DOI are responsible for cleaning the streets, paths and green areas, so they already have people there who's job it is to clean it up. So in essence that part is zero cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Controversially,i don't think it is a terrible idea to DNA test humans at birth. Not so we can monitor their public defecation habits, but i suspect that it would help with petty breaking and entering style crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aghtal Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I would hope wardens would recognise the diference between dog poo left by a dog and that scattered by disguntled neighbours. How ?... Finger printing? Joking aside, as with any new process it would need time to implement and perhaps allowing people one or two "non pick ups" before fines are issued during the first 6-12m would address any initial concerns. All dogs are supposed to be licenced and a reduced fee is offered if they have been neutered or spayed. Perhaps the same could be applied if they have been chipped or DNA'd too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I would hope wardens would recognise the diference between dog poo left by a dog and that scattered by disguntled neighbours. How ?... The fact it was scattered for a start. I doubt if these mythical naugthty neighbours are going to carefully pick up without distutbing and similarly place equally carefully back down. If they are then tough, as if they are that determined to get you they are going to find an alternative way anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Basically fresh ones as it would be a new system wgich you would probably take a year to implement So the Byelaw Task Force can waste £60,000 for another year rather than doing there jobs in the first place. This basically, pay me 30K a year and I will guarantee that I will bring fines in to match in the first 12 months. Hardly fucking rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 No problem with this in principle, (although I do think it is way over the top and typical Manx politicians playing in Granny's button box just because they can), but I do have one question and that is how reliable a DNA reading you would get from poo, given all manner of other organic interference that goes on in any alimentary tract, let alone when it hits the floor. When you watch these crime programmes the real deal breaker is the integrity of the DNA in whatever sample; surely a dog's stools has loads of other DNA as well as that of the dog itself? If I am to be subjected to criminal proceedings on the basis of DNA then I would like to be assured that the sampling was undertaken with the strictest non-contamination protocol. Another clarification I would like in the debate is whether the offence is to allow your dog to foul pavements or not to pick it up afterwards. There seems to be some confusion there because if the offence is to allow your dog to foul then I may as well leave it, it happened, I couldn't actually stop it, so I am bang to rights. But if the offence is not to pick it up then perhaps the phraseology of the ninkimpoops that are desperately seeking recognition in this mindless non-campaign should accurately reflect exactly that. Meanwhile, did anyone see the Coloseum on fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I think with all the high-tech solutions and costs etc, it would be a simpler (and much cheaper) solution to just spend the £14k on a poo collecter and just clean the place up, the debate on how to do the dna stuff and all the rest will occupy the national government, consultants, department heads, supervisors, managers, line managers, officers etc. for the next 20 years when they have more important things to attend to than poo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The only objection I can see you have to this is that you are one of those indivuals who does not clean up after their dog. If you had read the thread about other dog owners leaving little black bags containing "presents", you would know that I am 110% against people leaving theirs dogs mess behind. I have a little plastic device attached to both my dogs leads that has a roll of mini black bags in it. Dog poops, I bag it and bit it. Simples. I'm against this because its just another relativly unimportant expenditure when the government already employes enforcement officers who apparently havent done their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 All a load of crap ! DNA database and faeces non starter ! BTW the people responsible for any enforcement would be the Byelaw Officers not the Dog Warden whose job is not the enforcement of byelaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 enforcement officers who apparently havent done their jobs. I really want to know and hear why you and other people really believe and expect enforcement officers to catch people presently. The odds are stacked against them as they can only do somebody if they are caught in the act and the chances of that are very slow as the owners who let their dog foul are really cunning criminals who have sussed if you pick up when people are around but not other times your chances of getting caught is virtually zero. The only way this matter will ever be resolved is if there is some way of linking the crap left to the dog/owner or have surveillance covering every street and path in the IoM. Presently DNA testing is the only solution being offered if somebody has a better way then great lets hear it, but presently I have not heard anybody offer an alternative solution that would be better and less costly. As it stands with the chances of catching somebody are basically nil we might as well just not have the enforcement offices and say that dogs should be allowed to crap where they like. I have to admit as a parent the costs do not particularly concern me as I expect fines and the dog license should cover the costs. But if I had to pay via my rates or taxes I would have no problem as you only have to your kid step in some dog crap and tread it into the carpet at home or the car or get it on their clothes at a park etc and you would happily pay up. I used to do a bit of jogging. It was fine in the summer when it was light but in the winter the chances of coming back with dog crap stuck to our shoes were pretty high and it would be rare a week went by without it arising The present system is not and can not work. If DNA testing etc is the best alternative on the table then I am happy for it to be given a go. Either that or the IoM should ban all dogs except working dogs including guide dogs etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 According to several local residents, PSM Commissioners are keen to avoid prosecuting anyone at all costs for failing to pick up after their dog, and their current suggestion may just be evasion tactics. The pavements in The Crofts in Castletown yesterday looked like an elephant passes there regularly. Nobody in authority on this island can be bothered to make a prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathen Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The only objection I can see you have to this is that you are one of those indivuals who does not clean up after their dog. If you had read the thread about other dog owners leaving little black bags containing "presents", you would know that I am 110% against people leaving theirs dogs mess behind. I have a little plastic device attached to both my dogs leads that has a roll of mini black bags in it. Dog poops, I bag it and bit it. Simples. I'm against this because its just another relativly unimportant expenditure when the government already employes enforcement officers who apparently havent done their jobs. You filthy swine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wake Up Call Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Yet more reasons to have one local authority for Rushen sheading. At present, 3 authorities (27 Commissioners?) being paid upto £30 per meeting? 3 administration centres. Lots of ratepayers money could be used more efficiently. The Commissioners in the South seem hell bent on maverick actions such as this. They should strive to reduce rates in these times. The whole area could be 'governed' by 7 commissioners. This would provide a better candidate for election and reduce costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 According to this website DNA profiling for a dog costs £36. You'd have to have every dog on the Island tested of course as well as micro chipped - though most owners might be in favour of the latter as it helps find lost pets. Cost of micro-chipping is £20-£30. You'd presumably want to tie this all in with the dog licence, currently £16/£8, though it's probably due to go up. For the Government there would be the costs of setting up the database and maintaining it. It all adds up - even before the first poop hits the pavement. You'd also have the problem of visiting dogs and what conditions you put on them. And of course all this would require quite a bit of legislation - and we know Tynwald hasn't been that good at passing laws it can't photocopy from the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.