You mentioned (during our brief exchange after the meeting) that I might benefit from reading the latest pamphlet on this subject published by EnCams: Dog Fouling and the Law: a guide for the public) which your department usually distributes free to interested parties (although due to recent budget cuts you regretted that you had yet to acquire any for general distribution or even, you confessed, to become better acquainted with the finer details of said document yourself). I didnt get a chance to tell you at the time that I already possess several copies of this useful booklet (and have as you will doubtless have already noticed29 taken the liberty of enclosing one for your own, personal use30).
Among the more fascinating details contained therein are the extraordinary statistics that (p. 2) the UKs population of approximately 7.4 million dogs produces, on average, around 1,000 tonnes of excrement/day.
Burley Cross (human population: 210; dog population: 33; cat population: 47)31 certainly produces its fair share of the above, but, thanks to a by and large very responsible, slightly older32 population, the provision of two special poop-scoop bins within the heart of the village and the wonderful, wide expanses of surrounding heath and moorland lying beyond, the matter had never until TPs sudden arrival in our midst33 become an issue of serious public concern.34
I confess that I have walked35 Shoshanas pedigree spitz, Samson36, morning and evening, regular as clockwork, for almost five years now37, and during that time have rarely if ever had my excursions sullied by the unwelcome apprehension of a superfluity of dog mess. If Samson in common with most other sensible dogs I know feels the urge to do his business, then he is usually more than happy to perform some short distance off the path (his modesty happily preserved by delicate fronds of feathery bracken) on the wild expanses of our local moor. Here, dog faeces along with other animal faeces, including those of the moorland sheep, fox and badger are able to decompose naturally (usually within on average a ten-day period, depending, of course, on the specific climatic conditions). If Samson is caught short and needs to go in a less convenient location then I automatically pick up his business and dispose of it accordingly.
Further to a series of in-depth discussions with a significant number of the dog owners in this village (and its local environs), I think it would be fair to say that the model I follow with Samson is the model that most other reasonable people also adhere to, i.e. the collection of dog mess is only appropriate within an urban/residential setting, in public parks (where people are liable to picnic, stroll, relax, and children play) and finally under very special circumstances where your animal might be perceived to have despoiled a well-used moorland path to the detriment of other walkers enjoyment of it (although this last requirement is not legally binding but simply a question of community spirit).
I believe I am correct in saying that all of the above criteria tally perfectly with the procedures formally established by local government, and that up until TP chanced to throw her very large (very filthy!) spanner into the works these procedures were generally held to be not only just, but successful, necessary and universally beneficial.
With the arrival of TP, however, this fragile consensus was attacked, savagely mauled and rent asunder.38 TP, as you may well know, owns four large German shepherds and prefers rather eccentrically to take them on long walks on the moor in the moonlight (I say them, although so far as I am aware she only ever walks one dog at any given time39). These four large dogs are usually kept confined inside a concrete compound40 in the back garden of Hursley End her dilapidated bungalow on Lambs Green.
It was initially she insists due to the difficulties she experienced in negotiating/avoiding random dog faeces during these night-time hikes that her bizarre habit of bagging other peoples dogs faeces and leaving them deposited on branches, walls and fence posts apparently as a warning/admonishment to others less responsible than herself commenced.41 This activity continued for upwards of six months before anyone either commented on it publicly or felt the urge to root out/apprehend the strange individual in our midst who had inexplicably chosen to enact this special service on our behalf.42
Given the idiosyncratic nature of the bags employed (TP prefers a small, pink-tinged, transparent bag43 probably better adapted for household use, i.e. freezing meat44 instead of the usual, custom-made, matt-black kind45) it was easy, from very early on, to understand that the person bagging up and displaying these faeces was not only happy, but almost keen to leave some kind of signature behind.
When the bags were eventually identified as belonging to none other than TP (and she was calmly very sensitively confronted with her crimes), rather than apologizing, quietly retreating, or putting a summary halt to her bizarre activities, she responded somewhat perversely by actively redoubling her poop-gathering efforts! In fact she went still one stage further! She began to present herself in public46 as a wronged party, as a necessary if chronically undervalued environmental watchdog, as a doughty, cruelly misunderstood moral crusader, standing alone and defenceless clutching her trademark, transparent poo-bag to her heaving chest against the freely defecating heathen marauder!
And it gets worse! She then went on the offensive (see Docs. 3+4 copies of letters sent to the local press), angrily accusing the general body of responsible dog owners in Burley Cross of actively destroying the picturesque and historic moor by encouraging our animals to evacuate47 there.
One occasion, in particular, stands out in my mind. I met her quite by chance on a sunny afternoon, overburdened by shopping from the village store48. I offered to take her bags for her and during the walk back to her home took some pains to explain to her that there was no actual legal requirement for dog owners to collect their dogs faeces from the surrounding farm and moorland (The Dogs Fouling of Land Act, 1996). Her reaction to this news was to blush to the roots of her hair, spit out the word justifier!, roughly snatch her bags from me49 and then quote, at length, like a thing possessed (as if reciting some ancient biblical proverb50) from the (aforementioned) EnCams publication on the subject.51
To return to this useful document for just a moment, in Dog Fouling and the Law, EnCams provide an invaluable profile of a dog fouler (p. 4 when you read it for yourself you will discover that it is an extremely thorough and thought-provoking piece of analysis). Apparently the average fouler enjoys watching TV and attending the cinema but has a profound mistrust of soap opera, around half of them have internet access mainly at home but are not particularly confident in its usage, and they are most likely to read the Sun and Mirror (but very rarely the Daily Mail or the Financial Times).52
EnCams have invented their own broad label to describe these irresponsible individuals: they call them justifiers, i.e. they justify their behaviour on the grounds of a) Ignorance (I didnt realize it was a problem But nobody has ever mentioned this to me before etc.) and b) Laziness (But nobody else ever picks it up, so why should I?).
EnCams insist that these justifiers will only ever openly admit that they allow their dog to foul in public when placed under extreme duress. Their fundamental instinct is to simply pretend it hasnt happened or to lie about it.
Although I cannot deny that this profile is both interesting and I dont doubt perfectly valid in many if not most instances, TP was nevertheless entirely wrong to try and label me of all people with this wildly inappropriate nomenclature: I am neither ignorant, lazy nor in denial. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am informed, proactive and socially aware. And although I do dislike soaps,53 I very rarely go to the cinema,54 and my computer skills are as this letter itself, I hope, will attest universally acknowledged to be tip-top.
Since my acquisition of the EnCams document I have tried countless times to explain to TP (see Doc. 5 + Doc. 6: some valuable examples of our early correspondence) that not only am I a keen advocate of poop-scooping in residential areas and public parks, but that it shows absolutely no moral or intellectual inconsistency on my part to hold that allowing excrement to decompose naturally on the moor is infinitely more environmental than bagging it up and adding it, quite unthinkingly, to this small islands already chronically over-extended quantities of landfill. I have also told her that by simply bagging up the faeces she finds and then dumping them, willy-nilly, she is only serving to exacerbate the problem55 because the excrement cannot be expected to decompose inside its plastic skin. Rather than helping matters she is actually making them infinitely worse once bagged, the excrement is there forever: a tawdry bauble a permanent, sordid testament to the involuntary act of physical evacuation!
As you will no doubt be aware, around two months ago Wharfedales dog warden the criminally over-subscribed56 Trevor Horsmith was persuaded57 to start to take an interest in the problems being generated by TPs activities on the moor. It will probably strike you as intensely ironic that TP herself was one of the main instigators in finally involving Trevor in this little local mess of ours.58
After familiarizing himself with the consequences of TPs work (on the moor and beyond59) Horsmith announced (Im paraphrasing here60) that while he fully condoned even admired!61 TPs desire to keep the moor clean, it was still perfectly legitimate for dog owners to allow their pets to defecate there, and that while excrement could not, in all conscience, be calibrated as litter (it decomposes for heavens sake! Same as an apple core!) once it has been placed inside plastic (no matter how laudable the motivation62) then it must necessarily be considered so.63
Horsmiths pronouncement on this issue was obviously the most devastating blow for TP (and her cause), yet it by no means prompted her to desist from her antisocial behaviour. By way of an excuse for (partial explanation of/attempt to distract attention from) her strange, nocturnal activities, she suddenly changed tack and began claiming (see Doc. 6 again, last three paras) that for the most part whenever she goes on walks she generally bags up the vast majority of the faeces she finds and disposes of them herself (double-wrapped, she writes somewhat primly inside her dustbin, at home64) and that on the rare occasions when she leaves the bags behind it is either because a) the problem (as she perceives it) is so severe that she feels a strong, public statement needs to be made to other dog owners, b) the sheer volume of excrement is such that it is simply too much for her to carry home all in one go (while managing a large dog at the same time), and c) that she is sometimes prey to the sudden onset of acute arthritic spasms in her fingers, which mean that she is unable to grip the bags properly and so is compelled to leave them in situ, while harbouring every earthly intention of returning to collect them at a later date.