Friends of the Dog Walkers summary of
Environmental Management Programme: Walking With Dogs
Version 2.0 December, 2007
Draft for Public Comment

This summary concentrates on proposed changes to the initial Environmental Program for Walking with Dogs in the TMNP of 2002. That EMP was issued by Park management and was compiled in collaboration with Friends of the Dog Walkers. Version 2 of the Draft was issued by TMNP's consultants, Conservation Corporation, for public comment after two meetings with some members of FDW committee. It can be seen on the Park's website www.tmnp.co.za and on FDW website. Version does not have the full support of FDW and we expect to negotiate further. The closing date for comment has been extended to 1 February and it is important that dog owners who use the Park for recreation contact Justin Miller email dogwalking@natureconservation.co.za or fax 021 701 5302 before the due date. Please also contact Justin if the draft is not available at your local library. Comments can also be handed to TMNP office at Westlake. Please copy your comments to FDW at allweath@iafrica.com. INTRODUCTION TMNP functions primarily under the ambit of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (PAA), as amended, and the Regulations for the Proper Administration of Special Nature Reserves, National Parks and World Heritage Sites (GN R 1061 of 28.10.2005, issued in terms of s86 (1) the Act. The above are the legal restraints under which the park functions. In addition, policies and management decisions conform to the TMNP's strategic spatial framework, the Conservation Development Framework (CDF), which was amended in 2007 after a public participation process. The CDF provides for areas under Park management to be divided into Use Zones that specify recreational activities that may take place in the various zones. [Walking with dogs is defined by TMNP as one of the recreational activities]. TMNP has an Integrated Environmental Management System that calls for EMPs to be updated every five years. [All the specified recreational activities (horse riding, mountain biking, rock and sport climbing, paragliding, hangliding) have EMP's that are compiled in collaboration with user representatives] The EMPs are loosely based on the ISO 14000 Standard for Environmental Management Systems (EMS) (SABS, 1996). New Proposals A fundamental change of principle is that the new EMP seeks to define areas in which dogs may be walked in accordance with the Use Zones. The 2002 EMP lists areas where dogs may not go, leaving the remainder of the Park area free for dogs under control of their handlers. The original proposal in the draft CDF revision to exclude dogs from their Wilderness Zones has been dropped from the draft EMP for dogs but the proposal to exclude dogs from their Remote Wilderness Zones remains. For practical purposes this includes the Twelve Apostles, Devils Peak and the Karbonkelberg as delineated on the map. Also the Noordhoek boardwalk (leaving a path to the beach for dogs) and the Sunbird Environmental Education Centre. Tokai and Cecelia are now under the management of the TMNP and therefore will be governed by the new EMP. Version 2 of the draft EMP indicates three new areas which are proposed to be opened to walking with dogs. These are Tokai plantation west of Orpen Rd, Noordhoek wetlands and Shusterskraal picnic area. Some open areas are listed as requiring special management. These are: Newlands Forest parking area - dogs to be leashed from car park up to the T junction opposite the helicopter pad. Western Table - dogs to be kept on leashes. Noordhoek Beach - access limited to designated and signposted route. All dog faeces to be removed from parking area. Noordhoek corner near Klein Slangkop - a park designated area may be seasonally closed to walkers to prevent disturbance of ground breeding birds. All picnic areas not closed to dog walking - dogs may only route through these on a leash. Willis Walk - dogs to be kept on a leash and all dog faeces must be removed. Scarborough Beach and Parking Area - all dog faeces must be removed. [note - there is no reference to provision of receptacles for depositing dog faeces] CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WALKING WITH DOGS It is proposed that the existing code, with some alterations, be divided into two categories. Some of these are categorised as etiquette and the expression "should" is employed. The intention is for the remaining, where the expression "must" is employed to be embodied in internal rules for the TMNP. These will be gazetted in terms of the regulations mentioned above. This means that they will have the force of law and non-compliance will be a criminal offence. The latter are briefly, Walkers to remain in designated areas; Compliance with Park notices [note - already enforceable under Regulations for the proper Adminisration of Special Nature Reserves, National Parks and World Heritage Sites]; Possession of a valid Wild Card with the dog walking permit loaded thereon; Prohibition on taking more than two dogs per person into the park [note that the provision allowing a special permit for more than 2 dogs per person has been removed]; Dogs must be under the control and within sight -[ new] of the handler at all times. For the purpose of enforcement, control will be defined as : (1) the ability of the handler to return the dog to heel and (ii) if a dog cannot be seen it is considered to be out of sight. Dogs transgressing any provision of the Code may also be deemed to be out of control; Dogs must be leashed On instruction of park official. As required by any official notice. While passing through designated parking, picnic and braai areas. If the handler is unable to control the dog or if it is aggressive or otherwise dangerous. Dog handlers must remain on Park-approved paths and tracks at all times; Handlers must remove their dog's faeces from paths, car parks and other demarcated areas and deposit in bins where provided. Handlers must ensure their dogs do not injure or kill any wild life [note - this previously only referred to indigenous wild life]. Proposed penalties and fines to be developed with the Walking with Dogs Reference Group. A Walking with Dogs Reference Group to be convened by TMNP is to be constituted consisting of representatives of Park management, City of Cape Town, Friends of the Dog Walkers, and Mountain Bike and Horse Riding Working Committees. To meet annually to review progress in implementation and address key issues arising. Or to meet sooner, as required, to discuss proposals to amend areas. Issued for your information by Friends of the Dog Walkers, allweath@iafrica.com.

Acronyms

CoCT	City of Cape Town
CDF	Conservation Development Framework
EMP	Environmental Management Program
FDW	Friends of the Dog Walkers
I&AP's	Interested and Affected Parties
MPA	Marine Protected Area
NatConCorp	The Nature Conservation Corporation
PAA	National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003
PMP	Park Management Plan
SANParks	South African National Parks
TMNP	Table Mountain National Park

Comment by Friends of the Dog Walkers
on Version 2 of the Draft issued for public comment

The Mandate of TMNP. The Introduction on p4 cites the core business mandates as biodiversity, heritage and tourism management. Is it not time that provision for and acceptance of recreational facilities for local communities be added? The sustainable diversity of the biology of an area differs from place to place especially depending upon the presence and density of human occupation in an area, and the rightful activities of those persons . Use Zones and proposed areas for dog walking. Friends of the Dog Walkers welcomes the acknowledgement in section 1 of the EMP that walking with dogs in the Park is an established and legitimate activity. Nevertheless, we take issue with the introduction in this second version of the EMP of the identification of appropriate areas in which people can walk their dogs [see p6. Section 1.3]. This is a radical change from the principle incorporated in the original 2002 EMP that dogs under control may accompany their handlers throughout the park except in certain areas specifically listed in the document. This latter accords with the Heads of Agreement between SanParks and the previous local authorities that the status quo be maintained. Prior to SanParks taking over the management of the various areas now comprised of the TMNP dogs walked with their owners all over the present Park area, bar the Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by the 2002 EMP, FDW do not object to these rights being curtailed by agreement with the dog-owning community where there are cogent reasons for excluding dogs. Obvious examples being the existing prohibitions on dogs in Orange Kloof, picnic sites and certain boardwalks. FDW do not accept the notion that parcels of the Park be traded against each other with the object of assigning various sections for dog walking. Any prohibition on dogs should be strictly on the merits of the area in question. The communities that surround the park should all be able to walk with their dogs in areas close to and convenient for their homes. TMNP management accepts that it operates within an urban environment and should be mindful that the City is increasingly subject to traffic build-up. Why add to this by necessitating that dog owners be obliged to drive extra distances for their daily exercise? We understand the notion of visitor use zones as propounded in the CDF but it does not follow that walking with dogs, which is not genuinely a recreational activity separate from mere walking, should be prohibited in any of the use zones. We accept that dogs should be subject to special controls such as those contained in the code of conduct but the areas where these controls are most necessary are in the lower sections on the fringe of residential areas where the vast majority of dogs are walked. We strongly suggest that Park management and their consultants, Conservation Corporation be sensitive to the reactions of local communities to the proposal to ban dogs from Remote Wilderness Zones and that this idea be abandoned if there is substantial objection. If the object of creating Remote Wilderness Zones is to create an atmosphere of quiet and seclusion then it is difficult to see how the occasional dog accompanying its owner at these heights can interfere with this. It would be more appropriate (though we are not asking for this) to ban organised hiking groups, some of these consisting of young people can be notoriously noisy. Besides, we already enjoy a genuine Remote Wilderness area in Orange Kloof which requires a permit for entry and dogs are excluded. In this comment we do not attempt to discuss the particular areas identified and proposed as suitable or otherwise for taking dogs [see p14 para 4]. These issues need to be more fully discussed between the various parties involved in further negotiations and site visits should be arranged before we can come to meaningful agreement. Most importantly, we need to take account of needs and opinions expressed by the park visitor public during this comment period. Dog faeces. We acknowledge that the continuing existence of faeces left in car parks and on paths by some inconsiderate dog owners are an ongoing source of annoyance. We wish that those members of the public who complain would accept that the majority of dog owners are mindful of their responsibilities. For those handlers who are not, the appropriate strategy by Park management is education and enforcement followed by appropriate penalties, actions that have been sadly missing in the years following the initial EMP. But the most important responsibility of management should be the provision of appropriate receptacles not too far from Park entrances. We are disturbed to note that the requirement in Version 1 that dog handlers place their packets in receptacles provided as been omitted from this draft. It is not fair that this obligation be placed on the dog owners if there is no provision for this. Walkers just will not be prepared to continue their walk carrying packets of the stuff, nor should they have to. Perhaps the time has come for Park management, together with ourselves,to examine the possiblities of installing eco-friendly composting pits. Approach to consultation. We are surprised to read [p8 para 1.5.2] that "once a first draft of the EMP was compiled, NatConCorp then consulted with a consolidated reference group (the Walking with Dogs Reference Group) comprising I&APs, FDW and park management staff". To our certain knowledge, FDW have not to date been incorporated in any such group, nor had we ever heard of it until reading this document. A few of our committee members have participated so far in two meetings with NatConCorp. Unfortunately, these meetings were scheduled when most of us were unavailable. Table 1 on the same page is more accurate. Page 23 contains further reference to a Walking with Dogs Reference Group to be formalised on adoption of the EMP. This to include Park Management, the City, FDW and Mountain Bike and Horse Riding Working committees. We are not too clear about the intended status of this proposed group. Is it designed to replace the Dog Working Group initiated after the 2002 EMP, consisting of certain members of Park management and the FDW committee, or is it to be a substitute for the Park Committee? In any event, we would not accept as legitimate representatives of any other entity within this proposed group unless they have been nominated from within and not by Park management as has happened with the Park Committee Pages 25 and 26. Code of conduct and enforcement. FDW are not opposed in principle to the gazetting of internal Park rules to assist in enforcing some parts of the Code of Conduct. We assume that rules will likewise be introduced in relation to other recreational activities. We would like to know whether it is intended that there be rules for all those who enter the park area for hiking or for any purpose. The Code of Conduct needs to be differently set out with those items that have legal effect being separate and clearly differentiated from the remaining which are categorised as etiquette. Our recommendations in regard to specific items in the Code: First item should be changed to - dogs may not be taken into areas signposted as no access to dogs. This would conform to the general principle that we refer to above that the park remain open to dogs except in specified areas. It is in fact tautologous to the next item but enables a specific penalty. Fourth item - requirement of not more than two dogs per handler. The proposed removal of the opportunity to get a special permit to increase the number of dogs per handler is causing much distress to some dog owners with a larger dog "family" who are regular walkers. Though in theory three dogs are harder to handle than two our own observations show that while there are some walkers with three or more dogs which are obviously highly trained there are other people who cannot properly control even one dog. We suggest that a sympathetic approach is more suitable and that the permit be gradually phased out if at all. Fifth item - dogs under control of handler. We understand that Park rangers are unhappy with the existing requirement of voice control. Our considered opinion after much debate is that the more control gets to be defined the less workable it becomes. It is exercised in so many ways by different trainers and dog handlers and can also depend on the breed of dogs and most importantly, the terrain. To require that a dog must be at all times within sight of the handler where there is thick cover is completely unreasonable. The animal may be in a ditch or behind a bush in close proximity to the handler and within hearing but cannot be seen. In contrast, a dog that is kept on a narrow path is much more likely to snap at a strange dog or frighten a nervous walker. The essential element is that whatever method the handler employs it must work and there should be an effectively deterrent penalty if there is an incident for which a particular dog and handler have some responsibility. The requirement that the dog must be in sight of the handler should definitely be taken out. Eighth item - Requirement for dog handlers to remain on Park - approved tracks and paths at all times. What has this to do with dogs? In any event it is quite unreasonable to criminalise walkers for not remaining on Park-approved paths. Please put this in the etiquette section. Walkers cannot be expected to know for sure when they are on the approved paths unless management puts in so many notices that the wonderful wilderness feeling that still remains in the park will be lost. Also, many walkers are complaining that there are not enough paths to provide variety and a sense of seclusion. For dog walkers in particular numerous small paths afford opportunity to relax and take their dogs where they have fewer concerns about disturbing others. We understand the problems and expense of maintaining a greater number of paths but why not have a second tier of paths that are not fully maintained and used at the risk of the walker. Paths that are genuinely a source of erosion could then be firmly and physically closed off. Tenth item - Killing or injuring wild life. Please insert and restore indigenous wild life. It is not Park policy to preserve alien species. The dog-owning community to whom this code is directed does not allow their charges to kill animals. FDW never allowed itself to become involved in the controversies over the thars but, nevertheless, it is not appropriate for the organisation (SANParks) that has itself set out to kill unwanted alien species to criminalise some one whose dog catches a squirrel. Page 26 Scheduling and Implementation. Item 5. 2. Installation and maintenance of receptacles for dog faeces. Please change this from Low to High priority. Please make the following alterations to the text: P4 Para 1.1 Second paragraph, include "local recreational users" in the brackets. P6 Para 1.3. Identify the key social issues motivating ???. Something omitted. Also, change to identify areas where people may not walk with their dogs. P14 Para 4.1 Change to Identification of areas not suitable for walking with dogs. 4.1.2 Newlands Forest - Add to - dog faeces must be removed from this route and placed in receptacle provided. All picnic areas not closed to dog walking- note that there are some picnic/ braai areas on Silvermine river where dogs are allowed. Please change accordingly to all picnic areas signposted as excluded for dogs. Scarborough beach and parking area. All dog faeces must be removed. Add and placed in receptacle provided by TMNP. P15 Para 4.1.2 Willis Walk and Scarborough beach. Change to faeces must be removed and placed in receptacle provided. Para 4.1.3 Kirstenbosh - not part of and not under control of the TMNP. But note that there is a walking route for dogs on leads and also the contour path on leads. They have their own rules which must be complied with. P19 para 4.2 Code. Change to Walking with dogs must only occur in areas not designated as prohibited for dogs. Possession of valid Wild Card - Add and carry a form of ID. P20 Para 4.3 Internal rules - gazetting of internal rules - Add after drafted for public comment and negotiated with stakeholders AREAS WHERE DOGS MAY BE PROHIBITED We would like the following to be discussed in further meetings and some site visits: Noordhoek beach Schusterskraal Silvermine trail west of dam Klawer Valley Tokai west of Orpen Rd The Arboretum Noordhoek wetlands Karbonkelberg Twelve Apostles Devils Peak Sunbird Centre The Glen Deer Park From Friends of the Dog Walkers         Geraldine Goncalves         Chris Walker         Neil van der Spuy         Val Bennett         Phyllis Carter         Carol de Gendt         Taryn Blythe       & Roy Joynt for the Kennel Union of South Africa

the full EMP draft

Web Master: Pam Newby (021) 447-2820 or 082-5646257