Quite rightly there have been numerous letters protesting at the proposed restrictions on the excercising of dogs accross Calderdale.
Councillor Hutsun (your say 22 September) recommends reading the details of the proposals of the Council on the website “before jumping to the worst conclusions.” Well I’ve read all 30 pages most of which cites legal section this or that, so there’s precious little substance. There are however two sets of statistics.
Dog fouling reports. 694 2009/10 Compared with 617 2005/6
Dangerous Dog Reports 58 2010/11 compared with 56 2 years ago.
So if the Council considers this a problem,why hasn’t the problem been tackled earlier when the figures were very similar?
Leaving aside the arguments for and against, we all acknowledge that times are tough, essential Council services have had to be reduced and cut, often affecting the most vulnerable of our community so one would expect this report to address the cost implications. There are 4 short paragraphs with absolutely no cost analysis.
What is the cost in training 55 employees in interpersonal skills, enforcement proceedures etc?
What is the cost in providing equipment to enforce penalties?
What is the cost of signage advising the public of the restrictions?
What % of time will these 55 employees spend patrolling, how will their other tasks be covered and at what cost?
What is the cost of the consultation excercise with the public and over 50 organisations?
What is the cost of administering the scheme?
When it’s my money, before embarking on any project I work out if I can afford it. Not so our Councillors who have agreed to carry the proposals forward with no financial analysis.
Isn’t this worrying?