Dogs on leads on Nature Reserves, your thoughts.

[pressld2]

Just been reading the CROW act, as you do, and discovered that there are provisions to cover nature reserves and historic monuments.

Slight paraphrasing...

The relevant authority may by direction exclude or restrict access to any land during any period if they are satisfied that the exclusion or restriction of access is necessary for
(a) the purpose of conserving flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of the land in question
or
(b) the purpose of preserving any scheduled monument as defined by section 1(11) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, or any other structure, work, site, garden or area which is of historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest

So even when a nature reserve is on open access land, the owners can apply to the relevant authority (which I think is either Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales) to have restrictions imposed. You'd think that the Scottish legislation would have a similar provision.

The full text of the relevant section of the CROW Act is here: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Dave P.

[DoraMac]

I'm now weary, upset and disappointed at the reactions towards a new member who was trying to give an apposite reponse to a particular thread.

However, for those of you who may be interested in the law in Scotland, access rights don't extend to people responsible for a dog which is not under proper control and that is in terms of Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

[stevecurtis]

If the rules need to be made by the land owners,who owns the commons?dogs of leads has destroyed our common.

all the best Steve

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by DoraMac

I'm now weary, upset and disappointed at the reactions towards a new member who was trying to give an apposite reponse to a particular thread.

Im confused. What reactions exactly are you disappointed about?

The thread was enquiring about dogs an nature reserves and methods of helping dog owners keep control of the dogs. While the thread has wandered a little of its original focus at times there has been many examples of how certain methods have and have not worked and now the law relating to them.

Are you disappointed that no one agreed with you or your idea for a dog walking area in a nature reserve? I can't see any example of a personal attacks or anything of that nature, unless you count your unnecessary harsh accusations against nightshade for making "sexist, ageist and unreliable comments" which was a bit of a stretch. Please don't take this the wrong way but attacking a longstanding a proven decent forum member (Nightshade) and then moaning about the behaviour of everyone else is not really a great idea.

[Fauna]

Originally Posted by DoraMac

I'm now weary, upset and disappointed at the reactions towards a new member who was trying to give an apposite reponse to a particular thread.

However, for those of you who may be interested in the law in Scotland, access rights don't extend to people responsible for a dog which is not under proper control and that is in terms of Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

Hi Dora...(by the way. Welcome to WAB)

I have just reread the posts, i can't see any personall attack on you. Nightshades comments where also not made at you, i believe they where just at irresponsible dog owners in general. I being a Dog/s owner agree with him. Many of the other posts are having their say, not really aimed at any one on this thread...try not to take any of these posts in this thread as a personall attack, or you will end up like me "a bag of nerves".

Regards Chris..

[wanlock dod]

This is certainly an issue that some people feel quite strongly about, but thinking back to the original post and the issues that were raised I would just like to make a few points.

I have no doubt that a dog could do damage to parts of the habitat and some animals, but I similarly have no doubt that there are plenty of wild mammals and birds that can (and will) do damage to them. In my experience it is most commonly ground nesting birds that folks are most concerned about, yet surely these have evolved in the presence of foxes, buzzards, wolves, wild boar, wild cats etc and are probably quite used to having their nests wrecked and the eggs eaten. No body seems to have considered how important dogs are (or might be) in the grand scheme of things. Similarly, I have no doubt that a size 10 vibram sole can do plenty of damage on the ground too, perhaps humans should also be kept under close control?

It seems to me that the desired result is less disturbance to the wildlife, and less deterioration of habitats, and many people seem to think that a complete ban on dogs is the only way forward. If you ban dogs, would this result in less deterioration purely through there being no dogs, or might this effect be achieved not so much by the lack of dogs but by the smaller numbers of people accessing the sites because those with dogs have gone elsewhere (in which case restrictions on people might be more effective than restrictions on dogs).

Also there doesn't seem to be much thought for the sensitivity of the wildlife at different times of year, although I cannot think of many instances where local signs have indicated the ned for close control of dogs outside of spring/early summer. Most of the posters here seem to be fully supportive of a permament ban, regardless if whether the wildlife they are hoping to protect are in Africa at the time. Requesting that people keep dogs under close control during late autumn or winter because of ground nesting birds is unlikley to benefit the wildlife, but might inconvenience the dog owners, what would be the advantage of that?

Actually I think that most of the places that I am likely to visit are not nature reserves, although they are nice habitats and do attract wildlife. I think that the site of the Scottish bever trials would be just such an example, which to the best of my understanding was estblished by the Forestry Commission to encourage people out into the outdoors, yes there are nice habitats and nature trails etc, but I don't think that they are nature reserves, so perhaps banning of dogs on nature reserves would not have such a huge impact after all.

Dod

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

This is certainly an issue that some people feel quite strongly about, but thinking back to the original post and the issues that were raised I would just like to make a few points.

I have no doubt that a dog could do damage to parts of the habitat and some animals, but I similarly have no doubt that there are plenty of wild mammals and birds that can (and will) do damage to them. In my experience it is most commonly ground nesting birds that folks are most concerned about, yet surely these have evolved in the presence of foxes, buzzards, wolves, wild boar, wild cats etc and are probably quite used to having their nests wrecked and the eggs eaten. No body seems to have considered how important dogs are (or might be) in the grand scheme of things. Similarly, I have no doubt that a size 10 vibram sole can do plenty of damage on the ground too, perhaps humans should also be kept under close control?

It seems to me that the desired result is less disturbance to the wildlife, and less deterioration of habitats, and many people seem to think that a complete ban on dogs is the only way forward. If you ban dogs, would this result in less deterioration purely through there being no dogs, or might this effect be achieved not so much by the lack of dogs but by the smaller numbers of people accessing the sites because those with dogs have gone elsewhere (in which case restrictions on people might be more effective than restrictions on dogs).

Also there doesn't seem to be much thought for the sensitivity of the wildlife at different times of year, although I cannot think of many instances where local signs have indicated the ned for close control of dogs outside of spring/early summer. Most of the posters here seem to be fully supportive of a permament ban, regardless if whether the wildlife they are hoping to protect are in Africa at the time. Requesting that people keep dogs under close control during late autumn or winter because of ground nesting birds is unlikley to benefit the wildlife, but might inconvenience the dog owners, what would be the advantage of that?

Actually I think that most of the places that I am likely to visit are not nature reserves, although they are nice habitats and do attract wildlife. I think that the site of the Scottish bever trials would be just such an example, which to the best of my understanding was estblished by the Forestry Commission to encourage people out into the outdoors, yes there are nice habitats and nature trails etc, but I don't think that they are nature reserves, so perhaps banning of dogs on nature reserves would not have such a huge impact after all.

Dod

Regarding you first paragraph, it appears that some people believe that - becuase there have been predators for millions of years against these Ground Nesting Birds, that it seems it's permissable/acceptable to replicate that,so now, we can let pets in our charge to replicate such persecution. ? Even though those are birds whose number are dwindling to much lower levels than at the time that large predators had not been persecuted/become extinct in the U.K.

But hold on,- wasn't it mankinds decision to protect these dwindling numbers of Ground Nesting Birds/plants that don't tolerate much footfall - dwindling maybe becuase of the pressures of insufficient habitat and insufficient privacy ? They may be indeed 'quite used' to being disturbed , or have evolved enough to breed again -- er, 'somewhere else' in the same season- bu these other 'somewhere else' places are getting fewer and fewer and...... ------- that's why we have reserves (?)....may I suggest that the chances of them going to a reserve where they have a chance of not being disturbed is also getting fewer, and fewer, and.....

How to stop a 'silly'/thoughtless person from going along in their size 10 vibram soles go onto a Nature Reserve without crushing eggs? Ban them if it's proven that they were not displaying enough care & consideration.
In the meantime we could ban those people who are 'silly' or thoughtless enough not to consider what the reserve is trying to reserve & still wish to have their pet with them .

In relation to the idea that there should only be temporary bans during , say a migrant breeding season - we know a typical dog -owner will want to exercise their pet 52 weeks a year. Asking them to modify their behavior for 20-25 weeks - (probably at the most pleasant time of year in relation to the climate in this country) will be a challenge (albeit even temporary) to which I beleive will be a 'step-too far'....and a wardens time spent trying to persuade them to to go 'elsewhere' for that period - rather than the Warden doing something positive-for-the-wildlife in that time taken up by the Dog-owner(s) - is how to dissilusion a Reserve Warden , pdq. Especially if they have to tell the same 'spiel' to the dog owers 10 times /day, every day.

I still think that the alienation of a very small percentage of that part of society
( I couldn't speculate on what %age of the whole of the Population that is) who wanted to go to a Nature Reserve anyway, is a small price to pay for the loss of any income & still also beleive that the knowledge that an area doesn't have dogs may make it more likely to attract people with young children, who know now the area is safe for the young children in relation to some diseases.

This thread tells me that there are a large group of dog owners who cannot tell the difference between a Public / Municipal Park - where Dog Owners have a perfectly valid place to exercise -- and a Nature Reserve. As far as they are concerned, they are both large, open air places where one can exercise their pet -- so they will. Simple as that. Even though one place has been created for wildlife and other life-foms are tolerated, with restrictions. These restrictions being in place only becuase a proportion of society wanted them & realised that these restrictions actually help the reserve populations of Flora & Fauna in the first place, to survive , prosper & maybe increase. Increase in the face of outside pressures (from mankind.)

I hope that it isn't being advocated that the only places for protected wildlife are those areas where it is so hard to get to/isolated/remote/poor access/miles away from large centres of population -- are the only places where it it's now 'suitable' for Nature Reserve sites? A lot of the larger shyier birds and mammals in this country have simply been 'sent' to those places - only becuase of pressures put upon them from mankind -they are'nt 'of' those places - these places are simply their LAST refuge.

[Deb London]

Originally Posted by Brocakat

Regarding you first paragraph, it appears that some people believe that - becuase there have been predators for millions of years against these Ground Nesting Birds, that it seems it's permissable/acceptable to replicate that,so now, we can let pets in our charge to replicate such persecution. ? Even though those are birds whose number are dwindling to much lower levels than at the time that large predators had not been persecuted/become extinct in the U.K.

But hold on,- wasn't it mankinds desision to protect these dwindling numbers of Ground Nesting Birds/plants that don't tolerate much footfall - dwindling maybe becuase of the pressures of insufficient habitat and insufficient privacy ? They may be indeed 'quite used' to being disturbed , or have evolved enough to breed again -- er, 'somewhere else' in the same season- bu these other 'somewhere else' places are getting fewer and fewer and ------- that's why we have reserves (?)....may I suggest that the chances of them going to a reserve where they have a chance of not being disturbed is also getting fewer, and fewer, and.....

How to stopan we stop a 'silly'/thoughtless person from going along in their size 10 vibram soles go onto a Nature Reserve without crushing eggs? Ban them if it's proven that they were not displaying enough care & consideration.
In the menatime we could ban those people who are 'silly' or thoughtless enough not to consider what the reserve is trying to reserve & still wish to have their pet with them .

In relation to the idea that there should only be temporary bans during , say a migrant breeding season - we know a typical dog -owner will want to exercise their pet 52 weeks a year. Asking them to modify their behavior for 20-25 weeks - (probably at the most pleasant time of year in relation to the climate in this country) will be a challenge (albeit even temporary) to which I beleive will be a 'step-too fa'r....and a wardens time spent trying to persuade them to to go 'elsewhere' for that period - rather than the Warden doing something positive-for-the-wildlife in that time taken up by the Dog-owner(s) - is how to dissilusion a Reserve Warden , pdq. Especuialy if they have to tell the same 'spiel' to the dog owers 10 times /day, every day.

I still think that the alienation of a very percentage of that part of society
( I couldn't speculate on what %age of the whole of the Population that is) who wanted to go to a Nature Reserve anyway, is a small price to pay for the loss of any income & still also beleive that the knowledge that an area doesn't have dogs may make it more likely to attract people with young children, who know now the area is safe for the young children in relation to some diseases.

This thread tells me that there are a large group of dog owners who cannot tell the difference between a Public / Municipal Park - where Dog Owners have a perfectly valid place to exercise -- and a Nature Reserve. As far as they are concerned, they are both large, open air places whereone can exercise their pet -- so they will. Simple as that. Even though one place has been created for wildlife and other life-foms are tolerated, with restrictions. These restrictions being in place only becuase a proportion of society wanted them & realised that these restrictions actually help the reserve populations of Flora & Fauna in the first place, to survive , prosper & maybe increase. Increase in the face of outside pressures from mankind.

Well put!

[nightshade]

Solution; Charge the dogs for access or is that too simple

[Brocakat]

Maybe - but if the "protected" bird/flower species is (still) decreased or decreasing at this site following this, the place could just eventually becomes a countryside-location-where-dog-owners-are-charged ---- but lacking many/any "protected" species.

Care for the species is the priority - everything else a V.poor 2nd . (IMO)