Illustration by John Sadler www.johnsadlerillustration.com

• AS a dog owner I’m concerned about recent decisions taken by the Hampstead Heath Committee regarding professional dog walkers.

They have decided to enforce new licensing laws for walkers that, while welcome in principle, are fundamentally flawed in design.

They have announced a seemingly arbitrary limit on the number of licences to 20 (7am-12pm) and 20 (12pm-5pm), and limited the number of dogs allowed per walker to four.

This is a massive underestimation of the number of people whose livelihoods will be affected, and disregards the important role that dog walkers play in the life of the Heath.

The effect will be far reaching: the low number of licences will force many to travel to new locations; many will face the prospect of losing clients due to having to increase their fees as a consequence of this extra travel; many will have their salaries severely cut by having to take fewer dogs; and many dogs will have unhealthier, and unhappier lives, or may even have to be rehomed.

Dog walking businesses are very often family-run, and provide a secure source of income for a small number of people who have chosen this career out of genuine love for dogs they care for.

We all know that the UK is going through a financial crisis at the moment, and small businesses in particular are suffering. Therefore, it is almost unbelievable that the Heath Committee have presented such ill-considered and stringent licensing laws at this time.

Furthermore, it has been almost impossible to garner what the motivations are for these restrictions.

I have seen some vague reports that the Heath has had over 300 “dog related incidents” since 2018; however, it is unclear what type of incident. I am confident that few negative reports on the Heath have involved a professional dog walker.

In light of the impending restrictions, the Dog Walkers Association worked quickly and efficiently to provide the Heath Committee with a document containing clear requests and offering practicable compromises.

The dog walkers requested a meeting with the relevant authorities, however, once they were finally granted one, it appears that the members of committee had not taken the time to read the material they were sent and were unwilling to shift their stance.

Treating professionals in this way is, frankly, arrogant, and only reinforces stereotypes about Hampstead as a small pond of entitled middle classes.

The real issue the Heath Committee needs to address is the massive, unchecked footfall of visitors who cause damage by littering (and leaving other unwanted deposits).

The dog walkers are really not the problem here. I have known dog walkers to be courteous, professional, to clean up after their dogs, and to be responsibly in control of their packs.

My hope is that if enough people read about these proposed restrictions and state their concern, some pressure can be brought to bear on the City of London and the Heath Committee to reconsider, so that we can protect the livelihoods and wellbeing of many families and dogs.

NATALIE SCOTT
Address supplied