SIR — I live in Williton but regularly walk my dog and meet human and canine friends in the Watchet Memorial Ground.

I am writing in vigorous objection to the proposed dog ban there as I see no reason why this harmless, social activity should be threatened by what appears to be a high-handed, ill-considered and undemocratic decision by Watchet Town Council.

The proposal to introduce legislation to ban dogs from Watchet Memorial Ground is completely wrong-headed.

It even appears that, having completely failed to elicit the anti-dog response that it had hoped for from its recent survey, the council has now decided on backstairs politicking as the best way to press on with this apparent vendetta against Watchet and district dog owners.

The recent questionnaire, whether the council likes the outcome or not, was a process of public consultation presumably conducted at the public's expense.

The less than ten per cent response clearly shows that for more than 90 percent of residents, dog fouling in the memorial ground is not an issue worthy of their attention.

Of the 182 that did respond, only 75 voted in favour of an outright ban - less than 40 per cent of the responses and less than 2 percent of the town's population.

The remainder of those surveyed presumably had more significant annoyances on their minds, such as the weekend late-night drunken rowdiness and the mess of vomit, take-away food leftovers and broken bottles that I encounter littering the town and particularly its memorial ground on Saturday and Sunday mornings. That was the situation during the recent six months I spent renting in Watchet.

That therefore is my first objection to the proposed legislation - the council has already spent money but has absolutely no evidence that it is acting in accordance with local public opinion.

Even the council itself was far from unanimous in pressing ahead with the legislation.

The reported claim that the council has no option but to bow to the dictates of the memorial ground's management committee is truly an insult to the public's intelligence. On the basis of the results of its survey, it should simply have rejected the committee's demand for an outright ban and should not even be considering wasting further taxpayers' money on further public consultation and the drafting of unnecessary legislation.

My second objection is that, as others including Cllr Woods have pointed out, an outright ban would flagrantly discriminate against the elderly, disabled and anyone with mobility problems.

These individuals have little choice but to use the park as a flat and easily accessible space in which to exercise themselves and their dogs.

How could four of the council sit on their hands and passively watch as this motion was passed? They should hold their heads in shame or, better still, resign if this is typical of their contributions to local democracy.

My third objection to the proposed bye-law is that it is unnecessary as there is already legislation in place covering not only this issue but any others involving dogs.

As far as dog-fouling is concerned, and as the signs at the park entrance clearly point out: "West Somerset as a whole is designated land under The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. This means that it is an offence for a dog owner not to clean up after their dog. Failure to comply can result in a fixed penalty fine (currently £50) or prosecution and fine up to £1000".

So therein lies the simplest and least cost approach to the dog poo problem and the one that is most just - enforce the existing law!

The great majority of dog walkers using the park clean up after their animals (and those of others), but this issue will continue to arise due almost entirely to the anti-social attitude of a negligent few.

Identify one or two of these people, bring them before a magistrate and fine them £1,000 and I assure you the problem will disappear overnight. I can also assure you that every responsible dog owner in West Somerset will heartily applaud their successful conviction.

As far as I can see, all that has to happen to bring this about is for Watchet Town Council to officially request the involvement of the district council's dog warden service, already funded by Council tax, in bringing these offenders before the magistrate.

On behalf of all users of the memorial ground, could the council please do this without further delay?

Joe Bishop,

Townsend,

Williton.