David Elphick, vice chairman of the recreation, parks and property committee, Bovey Tracey, writes:

I have to say that if all dog owners were as considerate as Rob Silvey claims to be, there would be no problem (MDA letters, December 22).

Thanks must go to him for his diligence. However, I must take issue with him over my alleged lack of visits to the, what I always refer to as, the recreation ground.

As vice chairman of the rec and parks committee, as well as being a member of both bowls and cricket clubs, I can be seen there two or three times a week during winter months, and many more times during the summer.

Mr Silvey is quite right. The vast majority of dog owners do keep their dogs on leads and clear up after them. There is, however, a significant number of owners who blatantly disregard the ‘keep dogs on leads’ request, and are often rude and aggressive when asked to comply. The dog fouling residue is far more of a problem to the football club, as their players are more likely to be rolling around in it than the cricketers.

As far as the letter from Les Calder (MDA, last week’s Bovey edition) is concerned, the results of the public consultation, regarding the threatened ban, can hardly be taken as representative of public opinion. As he did point out, the response was pretty poor: 30 odd, I believe.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the 82 per cent of these were almost certainly dog owners. Furthermore, I would contend, the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Bovey parish were, in any case, totally unaware of the survey, hence the abysmal response. I am sure if one were to take a survey of the views of parents of children who played football or cricket on the recreation ground, a totally different result would have been obtained.