Marina Dog Ban

[mross]

2 hours ago, Bewildered said:

Would that be widespread DNA testing or widespread turds?

I meant both!

[Laurie Booth]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It looks to me like quite a high stakes game of bluff they are conducting.

Given that (in my estimate) about 50% of boaters own dogs, they will have to evict about 50% of their customers in January as few dog owners will just 'get rid of their dogs'. 

So then they will have to fill the spaces with new customers, all of whom will undertake not to bring dogs onto the site. Not quick or easy so this ban will hit the marine in the pocket, very hard. 

 

 

 

Or the ban might attract dog hater boaters and the marina will fill up quickly.

[Athy]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

You may be allowed to visit, Fox's is not open land to the public.

?

It'son (in fact at the end of) Marina Drive in March, and anyone can walk or drive into the premises during open hours.

[ditchcrawler]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

?

It'son (in fact at the end of) Marina Drive in March, and anyone can walk or drive into the premises during open hours.

Last time I was there someone had made pooperscoops out of plastic bottles and hung them on the footpath leading to the river

[nicknorman]

If i had my way, pets would be banned in marinas. Although one prime suspect has now left the marina and things are better, we did on one occasion return to our boat to find a dog had shat in our well deck. And someone’s cat seems to enjoy using our paintwork as a scratching post, especially the hatch.

[Athy]

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

If i had my way, pets would be banned in marinas. Although one prime suspect has now left the marina and things are better, we did on one occasion return to our boat to find a dog had shat in our well deck. And someone’s cat seems to enjoy using our paintwork as a scratching post, especially the hatch.

Aarrgghh! Hudson in scratched paintwork shock horror!

While I can appreciate your point, is it not the thin end of the wedge? What or whom should banned next? Babies, keeping decent folk awake with their skriking and screaming? Disabled people, such an obstacle and danger to pedestrians as they hurtle around in their wheelchairs and mobility scooters? Ducks, such filthy creatures as they crap expansively on the wharfs?

Edited November 13, 2017 by Athy

[nicknorman]

23 minutes ago, Athy said:

Aarrgghh! Hudson in scratched paintwork shock horror!

While I can appreciate your point, is it not the thin end of the wedge? What or whom should banned next? Babies, keeping decent folk awake with their skriking and screaming? Disabled people, such an obstacle and danger to pedestrians as they hurtle around in their wheelchairs and mobility scooters? Ducks, such filthy creatures as they crap expansively on the wharfs?

It is a matter of whether pets are more important than other human beings. Your point about babies and disabled people fails because they are humans. Ducks are wild animals that can fly or swim in and out, so not possible to ban them. So that just leaves pets. If other boaters want to have pets that remain within their boat, then fine (as long as they don’t make undue noise) but they should not be able to roam over other people’s boats or public space.

Of course, responsible owners wouldn’t let that happen but unfortunately most owners take the view that their pets are more important than other humans and the little darlings must be allowed to express themselves freely (by shitting and scratching wherever and whenever they feel like it)

[X Alan W]

11 hours ago, Loddon said:

Find out who it is, collect the poo, put it in a paper bag, douse the bag in lighter fuel, place it on their doorstep, light it, ring the bell and leave.........you know they will stamp on it to put the fire out.

Or dispense with the bag & post it through their letter box using a piece of cardboard

[Rob-M]

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

If i had my way, pets would be banned in marinas. Although one prime suspect has now left the marina and things are better, we did on one occasion return to our boat to find a dog had shat in our well deck. And someone’s cat seems to enjoy using our paintwork as a scratching post, especially the hatch.

We had an issue with cats, not only scratching our newly painted bow and stern but also sticking it's claws through the cratch cover as it either climbed up or down and also being sick in various places. As there were a few boats by us that had cats we weren't sure which one to blame. Fortunately we have been able to move to a different section.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

It is a matter of whether pets are more important than other human beings. Your point about babies and disabled people fails because they are humans. Ducks are wild animals that can fly or swim in and out, so not possible to ban them. So that just leaves pets. If other boaters want to have pets that remain within their boat, then fine (as long as they don’t make undue noise) but they should not be able to roam over other people’s boats or public space.

Of course, responsible owners wouldn’t let that happen but unfortunately most owners take the view that their pets are more important than other humans and the little darlings must be allowed to express themselves freely (by shitting and scratching wherever and whenever they feel like it)

...or, as G.K. Chesterton aptly put it, "I like a dog, as long as it isn't spelled backwards".

Point of order m'Lud: I think you'll find that ducks are birds. Dead giveaway, them wings are.

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

...or, as G.K. Chesterton aptly put it, "I like a dog, as long as it isn't spelled backwards".

Point of order m'Lud: I think you'll find that ducks are birds. Dead giveaway, them wings are.

Yes, I had noticed that ducks are birds. Birds of course being a subset of animals.

[Athy]

11 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes, I had noticed that ducks are birds. Birds of course being a subset of animals.

Your powers of observation do you credit.

Regardless of whether birds are "a subset of animals" (which I don't think they are, except possibly of dinosaurs, which be scarce in these parts), if a marina (or anywhere else) wanted to ban them, they could effectively do so by shooting any which ventured on to their property. But the underlying point is, to what extent should restrictions be imposed? I would add that I'm talking in general terms, not about Fox's (a diverse and well-run marina) in particular.

[alan_fincher]

27 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Of course, responsible owners wouldn’t let that happen but unfortunately most owners take the view that their pets are more important than other humans and the little darlings must be allowed to express themselves freely (by shitting and scratching wherever and whenever they feel like it)

Let me correct that for you, Nick.....

Quote

Of course, responsible owners wouldn’t let that happen but unfortunately most a minority of owners take the view that their pets are more important than other humans and the little darlings must be allowed to express themselves freely (by shitting and scratching wherever and whenever they feel like it)

As is often the case with your posts, you would make your case more strongly if you didn't resort to exageration.

[BWM]

53 minutes ago, X Alan W said:

Or dispense with the bag & post it through their letter box using a piece of cardboard

I have yet to see a boat with a letterbox..or a doorstep for that matter? 

If the marina suspects a new customer is responsible for the abundance of Richards, they might be hoping to shock them out of this behaviour, or to encourage peer pressure. 

[Flyboy]

6 minutes ago, BWM said:

I have yet to see a boat with a letterbox..or a doorstep for that matter? 

 

I think down the chimney would be an acceptable substitute for a letterbox.

[furnessvale]

8 minutes ago, BWM said:

If the marina suspects a new customer is responsible for the abundance of Richards, they might be hoping to shock them out of this behaviour, or to encourage peer pressure. 

Surely the onsite security cameras will catch the culprit?

George

[BWM]

7 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

I think down the chimney would be an acceptable substitute for a letterbox.

Adds an extra dimension to putting another log on the fire.

[Athy]

30 minutes ago, BWM said:

 

If the marina suspects a new customer is responsible for the abundance of Richards, they might be hoping to shock them out of this behaviour, or to encourage peer pressure. 

A greeno for your command of rhyming slang! Not sure about pee-er pressure...

Yes, I assume that the purpose of the notice is to make the person realise that he and his dog are under observation and that he's risking spoiling the marina for other people.

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Let me correct that for you, Nick.....

As is often the case with your posts, you would make your case more strongly if you didn't resort to exageration.

Well you say that, but the facts don’t seem to bear your view out. Fact: millions of people are dying around the world for want of basics like food and water. So what do their fellow humans who own pets do? Do they spend their spare money on providing food and water for the dying fellow humans? No, they spend it on food, water (ok that’s normally free), vet bills etc for their pet that only exists because there is a market for pets.

But that aside, in my capacity as a non-dog owner it is remarkable how all owners will be adamant that their dog is friendly/just wants to play/doesn’t worry sheep/always gets its poo picked up etc etc, whilst at the same moment clearly not having their dog under control nor even being directly watched. “Oh I don’t need to watch Fido all the time because he has had his poop for the day”  ... with back turned to yet another steaming pile of doodoo.

We have /have had a number of dogs ownered by members of the gliding club. I can’t think of any that have not at some point shat or pissed on the clubhouse carpet, despite the fact that all their owners deny any such possibility, and when faced with the facts say “it’s never happened before”.Yea right!. Dog owners are generally besotted and in denial.

One of the funnier ones was Saturday night. A member’s dog was in the clubhouse and running around like a mad thing. To be fair to it, it had had its leg in plaster/bandages or something for several weeks and this was its first day of freedom. Anyway we were sitting on the sofa having a few drinks and its owner was at pains to point out a strange behaviour which was that whilst it would lick beer from one’s finger, it would back away as soon as a glass or bottle was offered. If there was a glass of beer on the floor, it would never touch it. This was amply demonstrated. It did almost seem to have a fear of a glass or bottle. I wondered if it was a rescue dog that had previously had some associated trauma but apparently not, they’d had it from a puppy.

But despite the vehement claims that it would never touch a glass of beer, it took precisely 1 minute to entice it to do so and then it kept coming back, rather sheepishly, for more. This of course resulted in the owner having to get another beer for the chap in question! He was mortified (being a tight Scotsman).

The point being that owners think they know their pets, but in reality they don’t - they are unpredictable as all animals are.

[alan_fincher]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well you say that, but the facts don’t seem to bear your view out. Fact: millions of people are dying around the world for want of basics like food and water. So what do their fellow humans who own pets do? Do they spend their spare money on providing food and water for the dying fellow humans? No, they spend it on food, water (ok that’s normally free), vet bills etc for their pet that o

All of which, of course has absolutely nothing  whatsoever to do with whether those people who have then bought dogs in this country let them freely shit around the place or not, (but I think you already know that!).

You contend "most", (which surely implies a strong majority) do.  My experience says the opposite.

I don't suppose reliable stats actually exist, so I'll let others make up their own minds from their own observations.

I fear for standards at your gliding club though  I go in countless pubs where dogs are allowed inside, for example, and can't once recall any peeing on or crapping on the carpets.  Other than puppies in training, I have mercifully seen very few cases of dogs relieving themselves anywhere other than outside, either in private or public places.  Dog owning gliding club members don't sound a very nice bunch of people, by your observations, so I'm glad I have never gone gliding, (or at least at your club!).



 

[carlt]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

Your powers of observation do you credit.

Regardless of whether birds are "a subset of animals" (which I don't think they are, .....

"Animal, vegetable or mineral....or bird..."

Not heard that one before.

Birds are not fish or mammals (or any other member of the animal kingdom) but they are animals.

[Mac of Cygnet]

5 hours ago, Athy said:

Aarrgghh! Hudson in scratched paintwork shock horror!

While I can appreciate your point, is it not the thin end of the wedge? What or whom should banned next? Babies, keeping decent folk awake with their skriking and screaming? Disabled people, such an obstacle and danger to pedestrians as they hurtle around in their wheelchairs and mobility scooters? Ducks, such filthy creatures as they crap expansively on the wharfs?

TBH, this is the most important post in this thread.  Athy has invented a new word, and being a avid lexicographile, I would like to know what it means, please.

[Dave_P]

14 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Or the ban might attract dog hater boaters and the marina will fill up quickly.

This is a very good point.  I'd be more keen to moor at a marina if there were no dogs.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well you say that, but the facts don’t seem to bear your view out. Fact: millions of people are dying around the world for want of basics like food and water. So what do their fellow humans who own pets do? Do they spend their spare money on providing food and water for the dying fellow humans? No, they spend it on food, water (ok that’s normally free), vet bills etc for their pet that only exists because there is a market for pets.

What a load of nonsense. What exactly does that have to do with anything, you choose to spend money on gliding (I presume it isn't free) rather than send it to Somalia or some other impoverished country. Dog owners spend it on their chosen hobby. Hey ho...

[Dave_P]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

Your powers of observation do you credit.

Regardless of whether birds are "a subset of animals" (which I don't think they are, except possibly of dinosaurs, which be scarce in these parts), if a marina (or anywhere else) wanted to ban them, they could effectively do so by shooting any which ventured on to their property. But the underlying point is, to what extent should restrictions be imposed? I would add that I'm talking in general terms, not about Fox's (a diverse and well-run marina) in particular.

In what possible way are ducks not part of the animal kingdom? They're clearly not plants or fungi, nor are they single celled.  What form of life do you think birds fall under?  Perhaps they should be grouped with ethereal beings such as angels?

 

Some primary school level science: 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Dave_P