Chris is quoting the research as I read it. It has nothing to do with
one dog and how it behaves (or how its owner behaves) but rather is
about the diference between two places, One with dogs sometimes
present and the other without any dogs.
I suupport what he says.
Peter
On 13/09/2007, at 11:23 AM, Chris Sanderson wrote:
Hi all,
I think those defending dog walking are missing the point of the
original
research. The claim wasn't that any individual outing caused harm
specifically. The research was showing that, over the course of
time, birds
were less likely to use an area that dogs had been walked through.
Kurtis
commented about native marsupials aborting their babies when they
smelt dog
urine. Why would birds be any less sensitive about their breeding
site
choice? After all they are more tied to a place where their nest
is than
say a kangaroo with young in pouch would be.
So no one is saying that any particular dog walker's
irresponsibility is at
fault, just that birds are highly sensitive to the presence of
dogs, and
their passage through an area can have long lasting effects on the
bird
life.
If you disagree with that, go do a proper scientific study complete
with
analysis, or at least go through the statistical proof used by the
article
and criticise their argument on that basis. To use emotive or
anecdotal
arguments to try and refute what is a pretty solid scientific study
makes no
sense.
Regards,
Chris
===============================
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:
===============================
===============================
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:
===============================
|
