Are dog walkers a threat to our bio-diversity? (1 Viewer)

[lewis20126]

my dog

"My dog would never harm anything and isn't a problem". I had a cat for a number of years and being a naturally small cat, the biggest thing she caught were insects, although I did catch here terrorizing a frog on one occaision. That doesn't stop me acknowledging that domestic and feral cats are a huge problem for wildlife, eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephens_Island_Wren

cheers, alan

 

[Jane Turner]

Did you see the study where the faeces of cats was tested Alan... I'm making these numbers up, but they were of this order.....

Something like 75% of cat owners who attested that they cat never ate birds were wrong.

 

[lewis20126]

Did you see the study where the faeces of cats was tested Alan... I'm making these numbers up, but they were of this order.....

Something like 75% of cat owners who attested that they cat never ate birds were wrong.

No faeces testing was undertaken so it remains an assertion! FWIW the cat was an "incidental acquisition". I don't believe that (any) pet ownership is desirable, necessary or should be encouraged! Ban the lot of them.

cheers, alan

 

[Wildmoreway]

All day long there will be disturbance to wildlife by these events. And increasing numbers are riding on the open Forest including at night with bright headlamps. The NPA bylaws state that those carrying out the latter activity face fines of up to £500, but openly state that they are not bothering to enforce this.

More important to monitor the occasional passage of a dog, and its percieved role in causing mass extinction of wildlife. Next time I find a dead bird, I'll see if my dog tears it out of my hand in eagerness to eat it

Of course the mass cycling should be dealt with, but that does not mean that the issue of too many dogs (and most of them off the leash) should not also be dealt with, and you are still using the old chestnut of "your dog is not the problem".

 

[peter.jones]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here (see what I done there?!)

There are irresponsible people in the world. (I had a family of them living next door to me - what a pain). And while they are not "community minded" and very anti-social, they don't tend to be capable of causing a threat to bio-diversity. You can bet they are just as irresponsible to their dogs, and neglect them for spells when they don't take them for walks period, let alone thru sensitive habitat. Such people are more an irritation and annoyance to "decent" people. Take the Torquay beach example, I would bet there is a very small % of the coast getting disturbed if you look at all the innaccessible areas along that stretch. Yep, it's irritating as hell, but as birders, the challenge is often to find the less disturbed areas, and watch these places (without causing even more disturbance). Here in Hampshire, I can go a full morning without seeing another soul, especially early morning and late in the day when wildlife activity is at it's peak.

Also, nature is more resilient than we give credit to. Species adapt well to disturbance on the scale of thoughtless irresponsible individuals. It is corporate greed on a global scale where wildlife tends to really struggle.

That's what I think anyway!

Edit: but that's not to say we shouldn't keep tackling the irresponsible, anti-social individuals. I just think that they irritate and spoil the enjoyment of public places for decent folk as opposed to destroying bio-diversity.

 

[kennethwfd]

you are still using the old chestnut of "your dog is not the problem".

Where did I say that? I walk my dog on hurst spit because it is a bare shingle bank about a mile long. If I were to let my dog loose, say on Pennington marshes, she could well pose a problem. so she does not come with me on my birding trips.

Rather my dog could be a problem, but I have found a solution. I was referring to the earlier post implying that the countryside is overrun by packs of dogs eating birds eggs and nestlings

Contrast this with two women who let their spaniel off the lead at Sturt pond. It proceeded to chase the Brent geese. They called it back, as soon as it returned, they carried on and the dog went straight back a further two times. time to put it on a lead, but almost certainly any suggestion would be met with abuse.

Likewise many cyclists care nothing for "their" New Forest as after all they are only asserting "their rights" which have been taken away by the commoners and the Verderers.

 

[Wildmoreway]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here (see what I done there?!) Take the Torquay beach example, I would bet there is a very small % of the coast getting disturbed if you look at all the innaccessible areas along that stretch.

It appliea along the whole of the Coast from Oddicombe to Brixham, the least chance of someone getting on the eather the beach or the rocks they are down their with their dogs. There are only a few short innaccessible stretches. The only place with a permanent dog ban is Hollicombe Beach (a very short beach) and guess what .. when you go there there will be at least half a dozen dogs there that are also off the leash and most of them will be chasing any of the birds that have not already been scared off.

Where did I say that? I walk my dog on hurst spit because it is a bare shingle bank about a mile long. If I were to let my dog loose, say on Pennington marshes, she could well pose a problem. so she does not come with me on my birding trips.

Rather my dog could be a problem, but I have found a solution. I was referring to the earlier post implying that the countryside is overrun by packs of dogs eating birds eggs and nestlings

Contrast this with two women who let their spaniel off the lead at Sturt pond. It proceeded to chase the Brent geese. They called it back, as soon as it returned, they carried on and the dog went straight back a further two times. time to put it on a lead, but almost certainly any suggestion would be met with abuse.

Likewise many cyclists care nothing for "their" New Forest as after all they are only asserting "their rights" which have been taken away by the commoners and the Verderers.

I do not think that I have said that the dogs are actually eating the eggs and nestlings, the problem is that they are frightening the birds off and effectively denying them access to feeding and nesting places. The other issue is that other people see you with a dog in a critical and they think that they should be able to take their dog too, its the old issue of "adding straws until you break the camel's back", the real issue is that most other people with a dog will simply not comprehend or care about the cumulative effect on wildlife.

Most of my working life was spend in dealing with people who thought that the rules should not apply to them or who would try justify their actions on the basis of they themselves were only a very small percentage and would not affect the bigger picture.

 

[peter.jones]

It appliea along the whole of the Coast from Oddicombe to Brixham, the least chance of someone getting on the eather the beach or the rocks they are down their with their dogs. There are only a few short innaccessible stretches. The only place with a permanent dog ban is Hollicombe Beach (a very short beach) and guess what .. when you go there there will be at least half a dozen dogs there that are also off the leash and most of them will be chasing any of the birds that have not already been scared off.

.

What species are you concerned about, (looking at the very first post)? In your opinion which species should be on the Torquay beaches but are being driven inland?
And out of interest, which species do you see persevering with the beach that are being chased by the dogs mentioned above?

 

[Farnboro John]

John,

At Fleet Pond, I think the LPA and conservation agencies have essentially "given up" on the margins of Fleet Pond hence the new islands which should be more secure from most forms of disturbance, dog-related or otherwise.

cheers, alan

The new islands are removal of silt to restore the original depth of the pond. Unfortunately a line of vegetated islands across the middle of the large open stretch will change the character of the pond and make it less attractive for many of the aerial feeders and marsh terns that we have seen there traditionally. I am not a fan. The spoil should have been removed, but no doubt cost got in the way.

However, the owners (Hart Council) manage it as an amenity and fishermen, birders and dog walkers (not to mention walkers and playful kids) share.

The biggest threat to biodiversity on site is the Canada Geese that have rleentlessly encroached on the reed beds over the years. An experimental fenced area showed that excluding the geese led to almost instantaneous reedbed regeneration but larger scale implementation has never been attempted. We have spent several winters without Bitterns after a peak of 5 one winter and numbers of reed bed dwellers and roosters are way down.

In my opinion providing pathways all the way round the pond and making them wheelchair friendly (which automatically means bicycle friendly) were also conservation mistakes, removing the inaccessible refuges and creating a natural circuit for exercise - an anti-nature double whammy.

Compared to all that forty years of dog walking is nothing.

John

 

[kennethwfd]

to the above post:t::t: Its good to see a well thought reply identifying the real problems.

regarding issues on the New Forest, it was not pointed out by me that dogs have roamed the countryside for hundreds of years, why is it only now that they are the perceived major problem?

The New forest does not just exist, it is managed and the grazing of the free ranging livestock plays a vital role in maintaining the heathlands.

The ponies are in effect wild animals and should not be fed, recently I observed visitors feeding ponies whole carrots.

The ponies are annually rounded up (drifts) which can be dangerous and spectators are discouraged. This year has been difficult to carry out the drifts due to the number of cycling events, there was also an incident at one drift where child cyclists strayed from an agreed course into the path of a drift.

there is also the holier than you attitude towards motor vehicles on the New Forest "59 animals killed, more injured by cars, 0 animals killed or injured by cyclists" conveniently overlooking the fact that most arrive in their own cars - from information pack regarding one recent cycle event " Brockenhurst College has only 850 parking spaces, and for the two day duration of the event the town was a car park.

Refreshments for these events are brought in from outside, the nearest wholesaler is in Essex

Trying to find a parking space in Keyhaven at summer weekends is like finding a virgin in a maternity ward. I use a customer's car park, should I loose that customer, it won't be worth bothering to go there in the height of the season.

Keyhaven has not yet seen the "benifits" of an organised cycle event

As John says, when you consider these issues and their impact on wildlife, are dogs really a major problem?

 

[Wildmoreway]

And of course most of the dog walkers arrive in cars.

 

[kennethwfd]

they don't gather in groups of 1,000+ bringing traffic on the Forest to a standstill. "slowing traffic on the Forest contributes to road saftey" cyclists claim

They don't become abusive to anyone "getting in their way"

they don't have the attitude that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is a "Nimby Tw*t", who should avoid the area, stay indoors, or better still move!!

they don't make claims that their activities are saving the planet & benificial to the Forest

I am all for encouraging alternative means of transport & consider that the local buses should be on the endangered list, recently the Lymington - Lyndhurst - Southampton service was cut from 30 mins weekdays to hourly.

The new Forest measures 570sq km on which, although the numbers fluctuate, in some recent years nearly 8,000 animals are loose on the Forest. It has SSI's and a number of rare species such as Sand Lizard & Honey Buzzard.

Is there any other area which now, between Easter and October have 2-3 organised events each month to the degree where cycling groups scored an own goal as a road race clashed with a sportive, as a result police consent to hold the race was withdrawn


The New Forest Dog Owners Group (NFDOG) – membership impressively close to 3,000 - way back in 2001 produced an excellent, well-publicised dog walking code that is still circulated to new members. The key points: dogs that cannot otherwise be controlled should be kept on a lead, and only existing tracks should be used during the bird breeding season. Now, though, after 8 years, the code would benefit from strengthening, and the addition of an element encouraging people to use only main tracks. And the same applies to a similar code produced by the Forestry Commission

On the Scillies, unauthorised access is not permitted to several of the smaller islands during the bird nesting season. Here, notices are put up to advise regarding sites where ground nesting is taking place, but as for enforcement - pigs might....

 

[John o'Sullivan]

It is silly to try and reduce the issue to reductionist nonsense about walking dogs or not reducing bio-diversity.

The question should be does human activity reduce bio diversity and the answer is no, it increases it hugely.

If you follow this link http://www.europe-aliens.org/default.do you will find that thanks to human involvement there are now 12046 species established across europe that wouldn't have been there without human involvement (I'm not sure if this also includes those species established in gardens but not yet speading into the wider environment).

So in this time of change we have a much wider spread of genetic material than we would have done established in Europe ready to interact and provide new vibrant sustainable systems, long after the old redundant systems have become irrelevent and unfit for purpose.

P.s. despite Ireland leading 12-3 it's not a particularly interesting game.

 

[Nightranger]

If you follow this link http://www.europe-aliens.org/default.do you will find that thanks to human involvement there are now 12046 species established across europe that wouldn't have been there without human involvement (I'm not sure if this also includes those species established in gardens but not yet speading into the wider environment).

This is an interesting statement on the surfase JoS but it does not fully paint the picture where other species were rendered extinct in the individual ecosystems. At the very least, a lot of species come under geographical pressure so this is not a well made point. A good look at New Zealand will illustrate the point perfectly - although you could argue the introduction of mammals from the Northern Hemisphere and birds from Australia, it has put considerable pressure on native (and unique) species and in the long run this reduces biodiversity unless someone wants to be stupid enough to transplant whole communities. Anyway, this is quite a way off-topic so it will be my one and only comment on the subject.

P.s. despite Ireland leading 12-3 it's not a particularly interesting game.

I think the term is 'crying into your cocoa'.

 

[MJB]

It is silly to try and reduce the issue to reductionist nonsense about walking dogs or not reducing bio-diversity.

Yes, John, but sometimes we just like being silly...
MJB

 

[Wildmoreway]

This is an interesting statement on the surfase JoS but it does not fully paint the picture where other species were rendered extinct in the individual ecosystems. At the very least, a lot of species come under geographical pressure so this is not a well made point. A good look at New Zealand will illustrate the point perfectly - although you could argue the introduction of mammals from the Northern Hemisphere and birds from Australia, it has put considerable pressure on native (and unique) species and in the long run this reduces biodiversity unless someone wants to be stupid enough to transplant whole communities. Anyway, this is quite a way off-topic so it will be my one and only comment on the subject.

It is relevant in that we are throwing large numbers of dogs (and cats) into the mix in an unnatural way and it is producing a negative effect needlessly. Many islands have lost uniques species due to the introduction of domestic pets. The fact that there is a New Forest Dog Walkers Group with 3,000 members is another concern as most of them will also be arriving by car along with needlessy allowing fido to run amok in the New Forest. The fact that there are 3000 members does not make dog walking in critical places right.

As for the cycling events, I do not think that the narrow New Forest roads are suitable. It does not surprise me that the cyclists are abusive, people who choose to indulge in unsuitable activites tend to be abusive if you challenge them. In my experience many dog walkers are also abusive when you point out that such places are not appropriate for turning dogs loose in, or that you do not want fido to start barking at you or to pounce on you when you are attempting to photograph a Bbutterfly.

 

[Upland Birder]

In about 4 billion years the sun will expand and become a red star and there will then be no earth, no solar system and probably no humans or any other form of life as we know it. Just thought I'd mention that.

Dean:t:

 

[Wildmoreway]

In about 4 billion years the sun will expand and become a red star and there will then be no earth, no solar system and probably no humans or any other form of life as we know it. Just thought I'd mention that.

Dean:t:

Are you sure that there still will not be a Jeremy Clarkson or a Bill Oddie?

 

[Farnboro John]

It is relevant in that we are throwing large numbers of dogs (and cats) into the mix in an unnatural way and it is producing a negative effect needlessly. Many islands have lost uniques species due to the introduction of domestic pets. The fact that there is a New Forest Dog Walkers Group with 3,000 members is another concern as most of them will also be arriving by car along with needlessy allowing fido to run amok in the New Forest. The fact that there are 3000 members does not make dog walking in critical places right.

As for the cycling events, I do not think that the narrow New Forest roads are suitable. It does not surprise me that the cyclists are abusive, people who choose to indulge in unsuitable activites tend to be abusive if you challenge them. In my experience many dog walkers are also abusive when you point out that such places are not appropriate for turning dogs loose in, or that you do not want fido to start barking at you or to pounce on you when you are attempting to photograph a Bbutterfly.

Another wildly flailing rant.

The loss of species on islands is not due to the introduction of domestic pets, it is due to them being released into the wild/abandoned and becoming part of the wild fauna. Your comment on the New Forest dog walkers group similarly ignores the stated intent and ethics of the Group and its dislike of irresponsible dog ownership.

I am unsurprised that you think New Forest lanes are unsuitable for cycle racing as you seem to think anyone with a different outlook to yours is wrong. It occurs to me that your use of the word challenge is indicative of a combative approach that automatically raises people's hackles. Also, while I sympathise with your dislike of someone's dog flushing your photographic quarry, in my experience it happens as frequently or more frequently with humans of various sizes, ages and intellects. Is the New Forest an unsuitable place for them to be turned loose too?

I think you need to calm down before you give yourself a stroke.

John

 

[Nightranger]

It is relevant in that we are throwing large numbers of dogs (and cats) into the mix in an unnatural way and it is producing a negative effect needlessly. Many islands have lost uniques species due to the introduction of domestic pets. The fact that there is a New Forest Dog Walkers Group with 3,000 members is another concern as most of them will also be arriving by car along with needlessy allowing fido to run amok in the New Forest. The fact that there are 3000 members does not make dog walking in critical places right.

SW, with respect we have brought the thread back to where you originally intended it to be so is it really fair to use a scatter-gun approach to talking about the subject? I am aware of JoS' views and whilst I don't think they should remain unanswered I clearly stated that we should bring the discussion back on subject. Therefore, to cite the damage done by introduced dogs on islands is not really what this thread is now all about. Rats, foxes, cats and even deer and goats have done irrepairable damage on some islands but in an enclosed ecosystem, that is not that surprising. It is tempting to think that the British Isles are what they say on the tin but in fact, we do not have a closed ecosystem at least not to birds. In that respect, I would fully agree with your points if the dogs were just turned out on the streets or in our wild places but they are not so we are talking about two different things. I am not doubting that uncontrolled dogs can cause damage hence why they are banned from reserves such as Minsmere* but I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim a wider damage to biodiversity.

* Dogs are still allowed on public footpaths around and within Minsmere (and other reserves) but they must be on a lead at all times, as they should be on other public footpaths through reserves and agricultural land (I wonder how many dog owners realise this?). To illustrate the point further, the RSPB cannot ban dogs from the beach and there has been serious disturbance of little tern colonies. However, I should point out that it is through a number of reasons - Land Rovers (see Flying In The Face Of Nature - Simon Barnes), foxes and kite surfers as well as dogs.