[BBC News] Bird nest warning to dog owners

[CJW]

I do my bit for animal conservation - my freezers full.

 

Inane? Inane is normal here - perhaps you should have read a few more threads before you joined the forums.

 

I've read plenty of posts on here and, with a few familiar exceptions (yourself included), many people seem able to respond with considered and/or helpful replies.

I suppose the skill in posting on any forum is in identifying those who seem to delight in baiting those of us who wish to discuss matters sensibly.

[Albert Tatlock]

I've read plenty of posts on here and, with a few familiar exceptions (yourself included), many people seem able to respond with considered and/or helpful replies.

I suppose the skill in posting on any forum is in identifying those who seem to delight in baiting those of us who wish to discuss matters sensibly.

Nah - the real skill is identifying those that do both - and being able to tell the difference.

[P.K.]

So Albert, are you any nearer at being able to achieve that?

[Ronague Ram]

If DAFF were serious about this issue they would have employed a warden for the island's premier nature reserve.

 

 

I hear that they have done.

[CJW]

If DAFF were serious about this issue they would have employed a warden for the island's premier nature reserve.

 

 

I hear that they have done.

 

They hadn't up until last weekend. A bit late in the day if they have done so recently.

Even then, the warden is on a hiding to nothing when it comes to dog walkers letting their animals run free, as the standard response has always been in the vein of "I've been walking my dogs up here for X years and I've never been told to keep it on a lead" or "he (the dog) is well-behaved and wouldn't disturb the birds".

Well, I've seen too many nests destroyed by such animals for that argument to hold any credence.

[Ronague Ram]

They hadn't up until last weekend. A bit late in the day if they have done so recently.

Even then, the warden is on a hiding to nothing when it comes to dog walkers letting their animals run free, as the standard response has always been in the vein of "I've been walking my dogs up here for X years and I've never been told to keep it on a lead" or "he (the dog) is well-behaved and wouldn't disturb the birds".

Well, I've seen too many nests destroyed by such animals for that argument to hold any credence.

 

 

You refer to apathy towards conservation yet you also state you have witnessed many nests destroyed having apparently spoken to several dog walkers about the issue. Did you report the offending animals/owners to the warden or police? I know the attitude you speak of is frustrating but surely a publicised prosecution would bring some weight to what is acceptable/lawful on what is, after all, a nature reserve.

[CJW]

You refer to apathy towards conservation yet you also state you have witnessed many nests destroyed having apparently spoken to several dog walkers about the issue. Did you report the offending animals/owners to the warden or police? I know the attitude you speak of is frustrating but surely a publicised prosecution would bring some weight to what is acceptable/lawful on what is, after all, a nature reserve.

 

Ofcourse I've reported the incidents, but without actually knowing who these people were you can imagine what the reponses from 'the authorites' were.

DAFF aren't interested in making a stand, just in making the right noises.

Frustration is right.

In the last 5 years, we may well have lost at least 2 species of breeding bird on the island. And before anyone points to the much vaunted conservation victory in bringing about the "return of the corncrake", you should know that there is absolutely no proof of a single succesful breeding attempt. Lots of circumstantial reports and at least one downright false claim.

[Ronague Ram]

Ofcourse I've reported the incidents, but without actually knowing who these people were you can imagine what the reponses from 'the authorites' were.

DAFF aren't interested in making a stand, just in making the right noises.

Frustration is right.

In the last 5 years, we may well have lost at least 2 species of breeding bird on the island. And before anyone points to the much vaunted conservation victory in bringing about the "return of the corncrake", you should know that there is absolutely no proof of a single succesful breeding attempt. Lots of circumstantial reports and at least one downright false claim.

 

Okay - obviously a bit emotive and slightly off thread unless the breeding bird losses are down to dogs? Going back to the dog subject and keeping on topic - surely everyone walking dogs on a nature reserve drives there. I know I can match most dog walkers to a car if I am out at popular walking sites and they can be traced through that can't they - next time just check out the car and report that. Irresponsible dog owners really annoy me - if you can't walk them somewhere suitable then don't have one.

[Gladys]

Well, CJW, as one of those who you have accused of inane posting, I think I should respond. Firstly, I am a great supporter of conservation, wildlife and nature. I would never, knowingly, allow my dogs to walk in an area where they may be a threat to the local wildlife population. I certainly never attempt to walk them in a designated conservation area and anyone that does deserves any resulting prosecution.

 

However, I think the earlier posters are correct in highlighting the new scourge of the modern day (having despatched smokers as pariahs worthy only of smoking in huddles outside buildings) are now dogs and their owners. There seems to be a concerted effort to marginalise dog owners by excluding them from favoured walking areas. Douglas beach has to be the prime example of exclusion for no real reason. No other section of society uses Douglas beach during the summer in any number and yet dog walking is prohibited. Why? Such a prohibition would be understandable during the height of the tourist trade when the beach was jam packed with people, but there was no prohibition then, there is now, on what basis?

 

I wouldn't take my dogs into any of the Douglas parks because I prefer to exercise them off the lead chasing a ball which I wouldn't dream of doing in a park, but now dogs are to be prohibited from parks. Why not allow them providing they are on a lead? It won't affect me, but again rather than impose a sensible restriction it is an outright ban.

 

I walk the dogs through glens and often see signs up saying that if dog mess isn't removed by owners, dogs will be banned from glens. Well, I agree, owners should pick up, but an outright ban again is penalising the responsible owners for the acts of the irresponsible minority. In addition, it won't be enforced, so the responsible dog owners will not exercise their dogs if they are banned as they are generally compliant without enforcement. But guess what? the irresponsible dog owners will disregard the ban and continue to walk their dogs and allow them to defecate without picking up.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with banning dogs from conservation areas, but let it stop there. Allow dogs on Douglas beach during the summer months after, say, 9.00 in the evening like Peel; allow dogs to be exercised in the parks providing they are kept on a lead, but let's not start another witch hunt against that section of society else we shall soon all be the perfectly compliant, perfectly sterile and perfectly robotic citizens the small minded bureacrats want us to be.

 

Let us not forget, either, the guidance issued to local authorities in England that they should really not be using powers introduced to counter terrorism to snoop on ratepayers who over fill their bins etc. We are fast becoming a democratic dictatorship, only I have no faith that those who wish to impose another layer of regulation on me really have the best interests of the community at large at heart, far less mine as an indiviudal.

[Albert Tatlock]

However, I think the earlier posters are correct in highlighting the new scourge of the modern day (having despatched smokers as pariahs worthy only of smoking in huddles outside buildings) are now dogs and their owners.

My 50 a day Beagle was really depressed today. Even a box of Smackos and a tub of Bob Martins won't get him out of this one I fear.

[Ronague Ram]

I think most dog owners are let down by a selfish minority. That said, I agree with the Park ban. Many parents won't let their children have free run of the parks due to the risk of dog mess. Picking it up is responsible, but you couldn't call it healthy to touch/fall over/play in an area dog mess has been lifted from (particularly when the dog has a bowel issue!). Given the number of people who use them as a dog toilet it is effectively many children who are banned from the option of free play. Which group is more important - dogs or children? Clearly a devisive issue. Beaches are undoubtedly restricted for the same reason - would you like your children making sand-shit castles?

Going back to the original newsbot post, this was a message reminding the need for responsibility. Only failure to be responsible could have consequences. Surely the same applies to most areas of our lives.

[Albert Tatlock]

So Albert, are you any nearer at being able to achieve that?

Pretty much. I'm still struggling fathoming the mentally ill though

[P.K.]

Pretty much. I'm still struggling fathoming the mentally ill though

You mean you don't relate to them? Well I never...

 

There seems to be a concerted effort to marginalise dog owners by excluding them from favoured walking areas.

Well Gladys, "favoured" by whom exactly?

 

For me there are two points here. Firstly some people, especially children, are afraid of dogs. So why should a dog owner be allowed to scare ordinary folks out enjoying themselves in open places? Oh, and don't try and plug the time-honoured "Don't be scared, he doesn't bite" bs because they all bite, that's why they have teeth. So where there are people who don't want dogs around then there shouldn't be any dogs, simple as. I suppose muzzled on a lead might be ok but be aware that for some folks it wouldn't be.

 

Secondly I have no problems with people owning dogs but like the rest of the population I don't want to see a dog shitting and I don't like their turds everywhere. There is, however, a simple solution to this problem. It's YOUR dog so it can shit in YOUR garden. You decided to keep it so you can deal with it's waste products in the privacy of your own home where it won't offend others.

 

Sorted.

[Miss Take]

Good idea. The same should be done with other people's kids - I know that I for one don't want to hear them, see them or smell them. Locking them up in their owner's homes would be a great solution. After all, there's no way that the owners can promise me that the 'little darlings' won't interfere with my enjoyment of whatever it is I'm doing wherever I'm planning to do it. I don't have a problem per se with people having them - after all, we do want to keep the human race going, don't we! Heh, Heh. Sigh. But if they can be kept out of sight then that's a step in the right direction.

 

The solution could also be extended to, say, stupid people, ugly people and anyone or anything else that might cause me even a moment's annoyance or uncomfortableness.

[Gladys]

Pretty much. I'm still struggling fathoming the mentally ill though

You mean you don't relate to them? Well I never...

 

There seems to be a concerted effort to marginalise dog owners by excluding them from favoured walking areas.

Well Gladys, "favoured" by whom exactly?

 

For me there are two points here. Firstly some people, especially children, are afraid of dogs. So why should a dog owner be allowed to scare ordinary folks out enjoying themselves in open places? Oh, and don't try and plug the time-honoured "Don't be scared, he doesn't bite" bs because they all bite, that's why they have teeth. So where there are people who don't want dogs around then there shouldn't be any dogs, simple as. I suppose muzzled on a lead might be ok but be aware that for some folks it wouldn't be.

 

Secondly I have no problems with people owning dogs but like the rest of the population I don't want to see a dog shitting and I don't like their turds everywhere. There is, however, a simple solution to this problem. It's YOUR dog so it can shit in YOUR garden. You decided to keep it so you can deal with it's waste products in the privacy of your own home where it won't offend others.

 

Sorted.

 

Well, PK, walks favoured by me actually, and I see no reason why my enjoyment of walks should be curtailed by small minded, mealy mouthed twits who see something they don't like and then call for it to be banned.

 

On your first point, some people are afraid of dogs, well yes. But there are also people who are afraid of birds, cats and their own shadow. If my dog is under control (and he is when out walking, he only has regard for me as his pack leader) then someone else's fear is not my concern providing my dog is not interfering with them, and he doesn't. Everything that has teeth can bite, that is why we all have teeth, but that does not mean they will bite. I said above that I won't take my dog into a park, because I don't think it is the right place to exercise my dog, but there are others who feel that a walk around the park with their dog on a lead is acceptable, I can't really argue with that. If someone has an anti-social dog which they do not control in a park then they should be fined and banned from using the park as that does interfere with others' enjoyment, but not a blanket ban.

 

On your second point, my dogs do shit in my garden and I clear it up. I do not take them out for walks with the sole purpose of letting them shit, it is to exercise them (which makes them better behaved animals, by the by) but, unfortunately, and to coin a phrase, shit happens. Soil is full of nasty germs (tetanus being the main one that springs to mind) what would you do, have all soil where children play sterilised? What about the football pitches after a match; there must be a ton of snot on the pitch after the delicate single nostril blow that footballers effect, is it acceptable for children to fall across that?

What about bird droppings, which can carry some very nasty infections, rat urine and poo etc. etc. You know, life is risky. Responsible dog owners do take that responsibility seriously, so to try to blanket ban them from areas like Douglas beach is just penalising the majority for the acts of a selfish minority.

 

As ever, targetted enforcement of responsible dog ownership would improve everybody's quality of life, dog owners and non-dog owners alike. A blanket ban just impacts on the quality of life of a large sector of the population, as the responsbile ones will observe it, while the miscreants will carry on regardless.