Dog owner prosecuted for disturbance

[deborah4]

Dogs let off on Nature Reserve results in £500 fine for the owner:
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=1&listitemid=4369&live=0&utm_campaign=Wildlife%20Extra%3A%20Frogs%20-%20New%20pygmy%20species%2C%20Mountain%20chicken%2 0threatened%20by%20fungus%2C%20%26%20Irish%20race% 3B%20Whale%20sedation%3B%20First%20wild%20tuatara% 20birth%20for%20200%20years%3B%20New%20species%20% 27walking%27%20fish%3B%20Tiger%2Fhuman%20conflict% 3B%20100%20years%20of%20US%20bird%20records.&utm_content=crockfordkat@aol.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_term=Dog%20walker%20prosecuted%20for%20bird%20 disturbance%20on%20a%20nature%20reserve#cr

[steveo]

Bring your dog to any of a million places to let it run just not there @$$hole. He deserved it.

[bitterntwisted]

Dogs let off on Nature Reserve results in £500 fine for the owner:

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Johnny1]

I can't see why they don't bring back licencing for dogs and go a step further to make it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped at birth so dogs could be traced. And as for the above owner he should be banned from keeping dogs.

[JamesA]

Certainly a good result, but "it sends a clear message to others"...? Really? This one off fine won't be publicised by anything beyond local news and special interest forums like this one and so the problem continues. We've all seen things like this happen at nature reserves; most people honestly don't see the problem with their actions.

[chris butterworth]

After wardening a hightide roost of waders, on a SSSI/ Ramsar site, for over 20 years and being told that legally there was nothing that could be done about disturbance, finally someone has taken the bull by the horns and implemented wildlife law. I always felt we, in Britain, were always being more than a little hypocritical berating other nations for their lax attitude towards conservation when we have been just as bad in certain cases. Well done the "Raspberries" ( RSPB):clap::clap:
Chris

[Peewit]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

hi Graham

Yes, I feel the same as you. Best thing to happen yet for a long time!

I wish the same would happen to the dog owners at Putnoe Woods (where I saw the Firecrest last Monday)as it is heaving with mad dogs, barking and running like lunitics all over the place.

The message board stated firmly that the dogs have to be in control, and be on leads. Can people not read!!!!!

As for Priory Park, Bedford, there is a message on the 'Public' boards in the Park stating that dogs are becoming an annoyance to people in general and are scaring the wildlife too.
A fine of £75 will be imposed if dog poo is left on the ground, and the person will be banned from the park itself.

Pictures taken form last week.

This makes me think that is maybe why the Council are shutting areas to the Public during Wildfowl nesting time. 'Dogs' and people cause too much disturbance. As you see I have one implemented in Priory Park already. So we cannot see the Wildfowl until April 1st 2009 (ironic it is April Fools day too)

Anyway interested in what others say here

[Mary]

Unfortunately, the kind of disturbance that most other local reserves suffer won't be seen in court. We were members of 2 county trusts, but left one of them this year as we couldn't find a woodland site that didn't have numerous dogs running free every time we went. (Doubt if the owners were paid-up members!) We used to have tawny owls in our very local site- until it was made into a reserve:(
Surely the term 'wildlife reserve' is actually incorrect in most cases, 'Country park' would be more appropriate. In a reserve, wildlife should come first, people second.

[username]

AAhhh...don't you just love 'some' dog owners?! We regularly get complete a---holes taking they're 'rovers' for a pleasant stroll in a Leicestershire SSSI site....they walk all round the reservoirs edge...disturbing everything in sight..[which is immediately 'out of sight']....totally friggin oblivious! When you confront them, which we often do, they just laugh or are completely obnoxious...i will add tho...that 'some' are quite apologetic and seem to just be 'genuinely unaware' of the havoc that they are causing...[don't mind that...nothing against 'nice dog-owners']!

ps...for the 'not so nice dog owners'...am thinking of hiring a 'hit-man'...........[joking...sort of]....we've all thought about it tho...haven't we?!

[Peewit]

Unfortunately, the kind of disturbance that most other local reserves suffer won't be seen in court. We were members of 2 county trusts, but left one of them this year as we couldn't find a woodland site that didn't have numerous dogs running free every time we went. (Doubt if the owners were paid-up members!) We used to have tawny owls in our very local site- until it was made into a reserve:(
Surely the term 'wildlife reserve' is actually incorrect in most cases, 'Country park' would be more appropriate. In a reserve, wildlife should come first, people second.


Hi Mary

i could not agree more with what you have said in your posting. Reserves are for wildlife first, and people second in that order so too right waht you have said. Maybe some more appropriate naming should be sought after. To me Reserves mean 'no dogs' and 'Parks' mean ''dogs allowed'
Sorry to hear of your troubles with trying to resolve the issue with dogs. Very annoying indeed.

We visited Sandy, RSPB H/Q's today, and 'No Dogs' signs are up and dogs are 'not' allowed so that is a relief.
Just imagine all the Woodpeckers running for cover with all the noise from dogs alone when the dogs thunder through the woodland. The Woodpeckers where drumming to one another a lot and no way they could hear each other above a howling dog,

Just imagine if the RSPB H/Q's had no signs up that every non paid up member of the RSPB would be using the Reserve as a gaint tiolet. As a paid up member I expect to be able to use all the RSPB sites without any infliction of dogs at all. This applies to all of the RSPB facilities

Please do not get me wrong here as I love all animals cats, dogs etc....like all wild animals. I blame the owner of the animal not the dog itself. They are the ones that need to know what is acceptable in public places and what is not

The problem I see that is looming over, like a dark cloud, and over again are dogs which are badly trained, noisy, a public nuisense, and are out of control. They poo anywhere that suits them, and dig up holes everywhere they can (I assume this is to mark their territory). Then the owners leave the poo in the middle of a public pathway yuk.....
Hate to think what their own back yerd is like - so why not respect the great outdoors as shared buy others.

I still remember one incident in Bedford Park where a dog owner let his dog bark and chase some very young Cygnets, and the parent birds where going frantic, and becoming very stressed at the whole situation.
This whole incident went on for a good few minutes before the owner decided to take action and put his dog on a lead. He just found it soooo funny, and my OH and I glowered at him in disapproval. :C

What is this selfish world coming too

[citrinella]

This problem goes way beyond reserves. It is particularly difficult in Scotland where there is a general right to roam "responsibly" (as decided by the roamer). In one Example Scottish Natural Heritage have identified dog-walking as the principal reason why breeding eider and ringed plover have been completely (well, virtually in the first case) eliminated from the whole mainland East Lothian coast over the last 30 years or so. Eider still breed successfully on the off-shore islands, but they don't have suitable habitat for ringed plover.

I recently had discussion with the local access officer over whether I could / should put up signs asking people not to walk dogs on a particular short stretch of track I use as a feeding station in winter, attracting hundreds of lbjs, and which provides excellent breeding habitat. I cited recent research from Australia suggesting that the presence of dogs alone, even on leads, is extremely disturbing to wildlife. In that light, my preference would be a complete ban on dogs, which would be illegal. I proposed a request for no dogs, offering a path on the other side of the main road (that we have provided) as alternative. The access officer was _very_ supportive but the wording favoured was so meally mouth "lord of the manor" I feared it might encourage laughter and two fingers.

However, the horrible truth is that dogs are _very_ good for typical modern people. They are good for mental well being, and encourage exercise. The health benefits are extremely important. For that reason alone, any government would be extremely reluctant to discourage dog ownership or dog walking at all. In fact, if a dog is owned, it should be exercised appropriately for the welfare of the dog, let alone the good of the owner. It is no wonder the government (through local authorities) is intent on providing opportunities for healthy outdoor exercise - the potential saving in health costs must be a huge incentive.

The underlying problem is that there are too many of us, needing too much habitat degradation for our modern life-style. While the Australian research suggests that dogs present a particular problem, all forms of recreation in potential habitat, including bird-watching, will cause damage. We can each, individually, look at our practices and say the impact is insignificant. When there are so many of us, the impacts add up to something very significant indeed. Pointing the finger at dog-walkers might be attractive to us because of our vested interests, but it really isn't the issue (but see below). The issue is that we cause too much habitat degradation generally. We can each concentrate on minimizing that ourselves, and perhaps enhancing habitat where we have an opportunity in our gardens.

As for dog-walking - yes, things could be better. There could be more done to concentrate the problem on some areas, remove it from others. The same is true of all other kinds of (recreational or whatever) pressure on habitats, including bird-watching !

Mike.