Some readers regularly comment that this column is usually filled with absolute s***e.
So, as if to emphasise the point, today’s offering features the aftermath of dog fouling quite prominently. It follows a council motion laid down at Edinburgh council that is calling for sweeping new powers to clean up the streets of the capital, which have become a bit of a mess.
Councillor Christopher Cowdy believes it is now so serious that some radical action is needed, so he is proposing a dog DNA database is formed for all canines across the city.
This would allow the council to track down the owners from their dog’s mess on pavements and issue them with fines of up to £80.
I suppose it will be need to be installed by a Corgi-registered engineer with the results kept in a Lab.
But is he barking up the wrong tree with this proposal or does it deserve a round of a-paws instead?
Read More: Tweet this - Wilson's warbler has fallen victim to cancel culture
According to the council motion, around 24% of the city’s population own dogs, with all of them presumably needing a good walk at least once a day.
This is quite a large number of dogs and thankfully they will all be walked at different times, otherwise there could be quite a bit of pavement congestion and the parks would be full.
Of course, this means that quite a large amount of mess will be deposited too, which if left unchecked could cause a bit of health hazard as well as a horrendous smell.
According to the council, over the last six years there have been an average of 347 street enforcement dog fouling complaints each year.
The vast majority of dog owners, in Edinburgh and beyond, are responsible and will make sure the mess is deposited safely in the bin, with councils now providing special doggie versions.
However, there are a hardcore of dog owners who literally don’t give a s*** about the mess left behind and it these folk that Councillor Cowdy has in mind with his proposals.
He is suggesting various options to help combat dog fouling that includes improving enforcement and the use of fixed penalty notices.
But, councillors are also being asked to consider the practicalities of establishing the dog DNA register for the city, how it could be enforced and how much might be funded through issuing of fines.
Now, a cynic may see the last par and assume that it is another wheeze by cash-strapped council to raise extra funds and to be fair, it is very tempting to take that view.
Edinburgh’s streets could, almost literally, be paved with gold if every owner of a canine miscreant is tracked down and fined £80.
Read More: This is a dangerous anti-Semitic M&S row
However, there is no doubt that dog fouling remains a huge problem in many of our towns and cities and any initiative, however barking it may seem, to crack down should be welcomed.
After all, if a DNA database is good enough for a dog-loving country like France, then it should be a goer here too.
A pilot scheme in Beziers in the south-west of France will require all owners to carry their pet’s “genetic passport” in a trial scheme to reduce dog excrement on the streets.
Local mayor Robert Ménard says inhabitants and visitors are fed up with faeces on the town’s pavements.
He plans to introduce a two-year experiment to trace and fine those who fail to clear up after their pets.
Dog owners will be required to take their pets to a vet or ask one of the town’s veterinary specialists for a free saliva sample, which will be genetically tested and a document issued.
Those subsequently stopped without their dog’s genetic passport will be fined €38.
Dog excrement found on the pavement will be collected and tested, and the details sent to police, who will consult the national pet registers and match it to a specific owner who will face a bill for street cleaning up to €122.
Read More: Edinburgh Council to ponder dog DNA database to catch fouling culprits
This tail requires a paws for thought, as the move has left many dog owners in Beziers with long faces.
But while it may seem draconian, clearing up dog’s mess from the city costs around €50,000 a year.
Responsible dog owners have nothing to fear from the proposals, and many in Edinburgh will follow the lead and participate in the scheme fully.
However, it is unlikely that the worst offenders will want anything to do with it, as they know they’ll get caught, so it is hard to see how it will actually reduce the problem.
Making it compulsory, I suspect, will face all sorts of legal challenges too.
Which leaves the council with just one option – call in Lassie and Scooby Doo to track down the culprits instead.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here