I've had a look at the paper in question. The findings only relate
to temporary disturbance due to dog-walking. Bird counts were
conducted in the 10 minutes immediately following the walking and not
subsequently. In fact there was no difference in either bird numbers
or species diversity between control sites (where no experimental
walks took place) in areas where dogs were prohibited and areas where
dog-walking was frequent. The authors actually state "We found no net
difference in bird diversity or abundance between areas with and
without regular dog walking receiving the same treatment, suggesting
that long-term impacts in this area may be small."
So it looks as if the implications of this study have been
exaggerated. A lasting impact is surely whats most important and this
seems to be absent.
Peter Jacoby
==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
