I WOULD like to respond to the letter from Cllr Rod Kennedy (Postbag, June 19). While I do appreciate what he s saying about the sheep grazing encouraging the condition of Therfield Heath, it did appear to survive when the sheep couldn t graze due to foo

I WOULD like to respond to the letter from Cllr Rod Kennedy (Postbag, June 19).

While I do appreciate what he's saying about the sheep grazing encouraging the condition of Therfield Heath, it did appear to survive when the sheep couldn't graze due to foot and mouth.

However, I did take exception to his comments that dog walkers make no financial contribution to the heath as I should have thought we pay more than enough through various council taxes to qualify for us to walk the one bit of ground not built on in Royston.

It seems to me that the councillor is not taking into consideration that the majority of homes in Royston have at least one dog living in them, and furthermore, by treating dog walkers as social lepers he is also treating some of the very people who voted for him as such.

Why should we take last place to other heath users just because they are in a position to pay?

Dog walking is a lifeline to many elderly people, it has brought many people back from the brink of depression, dog walkers are friendly and considerate people who are entitled to walk their best friends in a safe open area without the threat of being hit by golf balls or fear of their dogs being shot.

If you don't want dog walkers on the heath then put your money where your mouth is and instead of clogging up Royston with more unwanted houses and multi-storey car parks improve your voters' lives by giving us a purpose-built dog park like they have in America: an enclosed area where dog-loving people can let their dogs off in a safe peaceful environment.

Dogs need to be able to run free as it is important to their well-being and this has a knock-on effect on their owners. It's not always about who pays the most.

ANGELA MALSTER

St Mary's Park, Royston