# Cyclists urged to slow in parks



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7632910.stm

prob killed as owners dont look after their dam dogs and keep them under control.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Mu_cnIQW4


----------



## solgursky (24 Sep 2008)

View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Mu_cnIQW4


It's a towpath, bit of give and take.


----------



## HLaB (24 Sep 2008)

I like how the article is rounded off, it seems to bring a reasonable balance to the story.


> The Royal Parks has said that while cyclists need to slow down in open spaces or parks, dog owners also need to ensure their pets are under control.


----------



## LLB (24 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7632910.stm
> 
> prob killed as owners dont look after their dam dogs and keep them under control.
> 
> ...




As a cyclist, I want to go everywhere at 100mph and take advantage of the places I am allowed to cycle.

As a dog owner, I see how it freaks the dog out when a cyclist comes past us on a path at speeds above 10mph.

I consider it dangerous to both parties whether the dogs are on or off a lead on narrow paths as you don't always get much time to react when a cyclist comes bombing past from behind.

I don't think that a request to slow down when passing animals is an inconsiderate one. You'd slow down in a car (or cycle/motorcycle/etc) if you were passing by a Horse on the road wouldn't you ?


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

I slow down in parks, and I'm very careful around dogs. As a dog owner, my own mutt gets a VERY short lead when bikes/horses etc pass us.

It's common sense really, imo - the pity of that is that it seems to not be all that common these days.


----------



## Blackandblue (24 Sep 2008)

I also slow down for horses when I pass on my bike.

But only after having learnt the hard way - bombing past some horses and being shouted at by their riders. Me bad.


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

yep i do slow down as i know they are likely to do something unpredictable. certainly is give and take and people should bare that in mind. ps did you see how far the owner was away from the dog, he did'nt give a monkey about his pet.

there were some police horses down there today and yesterday. not posted the video yet, but you can see how careful this country boy cyclists is. Had to stop for a squirel today as it just wanted to sit there and eat his nuts lol. didnt mind as seeing a bit of nature in action is great, like the geese and other wild fowl.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2008)

In fairness, I fully agree with them - there are far too many angry and impatient cyclists out there, swearing at you to get out of their way.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> ...there are far too many angry and impatient cyclists out there, swearing at you to get out of their way.


It's a bit of a tangent, but I agree that some people seem to take what I think of as a "car" attitude, and bring it to the bike.

I don't know why this is - whether these are folk that buy into the whole "cyclist as urban warrior" thing, whether they think that's what you're supposed to do, or whether it's some sort of pre-emptive aggression aimed at other road users. 

Getting your blood pressure sky high and being narky with people sort of misses the point of what's good about being on the bike, imo. A large part of that for me is enjoying the ride, not getting too stressed, and interacting a bit with the folk around you (passing the time of day as opposed to barging past them at the ASL, chatting to dog owners about their mutts, cyclists about their bikes etc)


----------



## Mr Pig (24 Sep 2008)

You have no choice but to slow down. Fair enough, the mutts are often running rampant but it's still out responsibility to take care. 

I ran over a dog a few months ago. Running loose, no owner to be seen. I slowed right down but still nearly killed it!


----------



## domtyler (24 Sep 2008)

When I am cycling my commute I want to get where I am going as quickly as possible and so cycle flat out for the duration. I realised a long time ago that main roads were the correct and proper place to do this.


----------



## Blackandblue (24 Sep 2008)

Hear hear.


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> You have no choice but to slow down. Fair enough, the mutts are often running rampant but it's still out responsibility to take care.
> 
> I ran over a dog a few months ago. Running loose, no owner to be seen. I slowed right down but still nearly killed it!



My avatar just chased your piggy arse up and down the park.


----------



## pinkkaz (24 Sep 2008)

I was cycling through Hyde park this summer. Very slowly, although that didn't help the poor pigeon that ended up in my front wheel, or the tourists which I almost ran in to in the ensuing confusion.

Maybe parents need to keep their offspring under control instead of letting them run at pigeons around cyclists!


----------



## swee'pea99 (24 Sep 2008)

My commute takes me thru' the park. On the road I ride like a demon; in the park I keep below about 10mph at all times, and anytime I'm anywhere near a human bean, dog, duck or even squirrel, I slow to walking speed or less. If needs be, I stop. What's the hurry? I often wonder what all those mad overtakers and the like have planned for the two and a half minutes they've saved then they get to the other end. Quick one off the wrist perhaps?


----------



## solgursky (24 Sep 2008)

Jenny Seagrove was just on BBC London news, making it clear she supported cyclists. She used to be Michael Winner's girlfriend and will be in his will cos she never kissed and told. One ex Grange Hill actress sold her story for about £20k and lost out on loads more had she kept quiet, Winner made clear.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

I'm looking forward to the story that the BBC undoubtedly has waiting in the wings, "Drivers Urged Not to Overtake too Close, Obey Traffic Law Once in a Bloody While, Look Beyond the End of their Bonnet Occasionally".


----------



## solgursky (24 Sep 2008)

And it's back to 2 dogs.


----------



## domtyler (24 Sep 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']My commute takes me thru' the park. On the road I ride like a demon; in the park I keep below about 10mph at all times, and anytime I'm anywhere near a *human bean*, dog, duck or even squirrel, I slow to walking speed or less.[/QUOTE]

I find that most human beans are also runners, they don't have a care in the world and stringing up would be too good.


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

I walk the dog on a shared use path. I've taught him to sit and stay on command, wherever he is and use this when I see a bike approaching, though he doesn't always plonk his backside in exactly the right place, he at least keeps still.

Most cyclists are very polite, slow down and say thank you. You get the occasional one who just looks like it's only to be expected and the even more occasional one who shouts at you to 'excuse me' and speeds past way too fast.

Animals are unpredictable though even when trained, so slowing down is sensible.


----------



## bryce (24 Sep 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> I don't know why this is - whether these are folk that buy into the whole "cyclist as urban warrior" thing, whether they think that's what you're supposed to do, or whether it's some sort of pre-emptive aggression aimed at other road users.



Completely agree (I've made this point various times) although I've stopped being outwardly friendly to most other commuter cyclists in London, sad but many of them in my experience are eejits who cause danger to themselves and others. I see acts of idiocy daily - pretty much at most junctions.

It almost makes me dislike cycling - although a weekend 60 miler in the Surrey Hills soon sorts that.


----------



## Mr Pig (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> My avatar just chased your piggy arse up and down the park.



Your avatar should've been on a lead! ;0)


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

Babe! Baa, Ram, Ewe. Baa, Ram, Ewe


----------



## PeteinLadywell (24 Sep 2008)

I'm with the people who say that cyclists should ride slowly when in the park, to do otherwise is just daft. If you do hit a dog it won't be totally your fault, but I'm sure you would still rather not hit a dog and the best way to avoid this is to go at a speed that allows you to stop instead. Obviously.


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

well we all remember this from last years Tour. He was going pretty slowly too and no sign of the owner!


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c0dzMp61G5w


----------



## bonj2 (24 Sep 2008)

ooooh, shoot! -... oh no, I'm ok it's in london.


----------



## jmaccyd (24 Sep 2008)

Ouch! Not for the faint hearted,


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aBD1oLKpQ4&NR=1


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

ah that was the year before right? 2006


----------



## jmaccyd (24 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> ah that was the year before right? 2006




Believe so, both appeared to be overweight Labradors (is there any other sort of Labrador?)


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

and French lol


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

jmaccyd said:


> Believe so, both appeared to be overweight Labradors (is there any other sort of Labrador?)



me!


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2008)

So, cyclists are asked to show extra consideration for dog owners who believe its okay to let their animal s**t in public so long as they 'clean it up', or, in other words, wipe most of it up leaving a disgusting smear full of dangerous bacteria? We're asked to take it easy to avoid spooking a bunch of dangerous and potentially aggressive carnivores that are kept purely as entertainment and overfed on factory farmed meat by 'animal lovers'? Really, the use of intensively reared meat in any context means you're not an animal lover. 

Crazy f45ed up world we live in, isn't it? 

I like dogs, I think they're entertaining and endearing. But the way some (most, really) dog owners act... Its shameful. And now they're complaining because their (off the lead?) animals are being put at risk by cyclists? Oh, come on, we're taking that seriously?


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

i guess the news is referring to those little rats on leads which the celeb's are carying around with them. cant remember the news story now, and how was moaning about it, buit i doubt if the killed dogs were big ones like in the tour de france clips, but some shitty little tihng. lol sorry, just laughing at hte image of these creatures


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> i guess the news is referring to those little rats on leads which the celeb's are carying around with them. cant remember the news story now, and how was moaning about it, buit i doubt if the killed dogs were big ones like in the tour de france clips, but some shitty little tihng. lol sorry, just laughing at hte image of these creatures



Ahh, yes, slow down because you might upset Fifi-Tricksypoos, or whatever else the rat on a string is called.

Sorry, but it ain't livestock. Its a pet, little more than a toy for most folk living in towns. I'll do my best not to hit any obstruction, but I no more accept the presence of such a dog in my way as appropriate any more than I accept someone doing a jigsaw on the pavement.


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

rofl


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

Cab, I suppose you'd understand then if Tricksy's owner took the contrary view and didn't mind if Tricksy bit the odd cyclist as they're generally uncaring aggressive people. She doesn't want tricksy to bite them but if they get in the way, well....

I don't suppose there's any point in saying live and let live a little eh?


----------



## Jake (24 Sep 2008)

well i think if lady muck encouraged her shoot-su to bite people while she is rarring it up with her range rover sport friends, then i'm all up for kicking the odd shoot-su who is going for my ankle. (for the ones who take things too seriously, i wou;dnt kick a dog. the owner maybe lol)


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2008)

I once got told off by a dog walker - for riding from mount gate to the toilets, all of about 15m. She was right too, I shouldn't have been riding there, but then again she shouldn't have been walking her dog without a lead.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Cab, I suppose you'd understand then if Tricksy's owner took the contrary view and didn't mind if Tricksy bit the odd cyclist as they're generally uncaring aggressive people. She doesn't want tricksy to bite them but if they get in the way, well....
> 
> I don't suppose there's any point in saying live and let live a little eh?



Absolutely. Live and let live. I've no truck whatsoever with a dog owner who doesn't feed their pet with factory farmed meat (yes, thats pretty much all of the commercial brands of dog food) and whose dog does not defacate in public, and who does not let their ultimately unpredictable animal off the lead where there are moving vehicles. 

You know of such a dog owner?


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

What do you mean by factory farmed food. There are many brands of dogfood which are not cheap which come from sustainable properly reared animals. I presume you are a vegetarian with this statement?

As for dogs on the lead, I don't really see why they shouldn't be off the lead in a public space provided the animal is controlled. A public space is just that, it doesn't belong to one activity more than another.

Defecation in public: Well, if the diet is good, dog poo can be picked up and disposed of quite easily. If not, wet wipes can be used.

Personally I'd rather see people out excercising their dogs and keeping themselves fit and healthy and there's lots of studies which show the benefits of owning a dog for this.

I would admit that some dog owners are less than good but hey some cyclists aren't so wonderful either.


----------



## domtyler (24 Sep 2008)

I'd love to know how many dogs are killed by motor vehicles each year, can't remember the last public protest by dog owners against drivers though!!


----------



## hackbike 6 (24 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I once got told off by a dog walker - for riding from mount gate to the toilets, all of about 15m. She was right too, I shouldn't have been riding there, but then again she shouldn't have been walking her dog without a lead.



Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2008)

Never said they did, mate.


----------



## hackbike 6 (24 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Never said they did, mate.



Joking hence the ---->


----------



## Hugo15 (24 Sep 2008)

Stupid women tonight on he way home, kid in the pushchair, dog off the lead running up and down the cycle path. No control over it what so ever. Had to virtually stop and then she give me a look as if I was in the wrong. FFS. Bit my tongue and didn't say anything (but gave her a disapproving look).

A few hundred yards further on two more bloody dog owners taking up all the cycle lane and path. They didn't make any effort to move but then the dog jumped backwards and forced me on to the grass. Should I have ran the mutt over??


----------



## Priscilla Parsley (24 Sep 2008)

for me parks are not for speed, get back on the cycle path/roads for that


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

I thought all these shared use areas, cycle lanes or not, are give way to walkers?


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> I thought all these shared use areas, cycle lanes or not, are give way to walkers?



Seems like the right thing to do to me, but then I'm probably _terribly_ old fashioned.


----------



## gbb (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> What do you mean by factory farmed food. There are many brands of dogfood which are not cheap which come from sustainable properly reared animals. I presume you are a vegetarian with this statement?
> 
> As for dogs on the lead, I don't really see why they shouldn't be off the lead in a public space provided the animal is controlled. A public space is just that, it doesn't belong to one activity more than another.
> 
> ...




The petfood industry i worked in used sustainable meat...but not in the sense you'd think. Sustainable, in the sense there's a never ending supply of waste and offal that we would never eat. There's nothing fussy or caring about it.

Lungs, viscera, blood (by the tanker load), rabbits heads (by the lorry load), fish heads and spine (by the lorry load), even kangaroo or wallaby heads ...absolutely (or at least virtually) NOTHING gets wasted.
Cretins that eat this stuff to try to prove a point are just that..cretins. I've seen the maggots, the gunk and shite that gets used...even in Sheba, a premium product.

This of course has nothing to do with the topic....but having worked in that industry, i'm glad i'm not a dog or cat


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

No, as in no offal but proper meat cuts and veg.. Generally it's dried stuff not the stuff you buy in tins in supermarkets. No I've been in a rendering plant, the worst smell I have ever come across.


----------



## Cab (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> What do you mean by factory farmed food. There are many brands of dogfood which are not cheap which come from sustainable properly reared animals. I presume you are a vegetarian with this statement?



Vegetarian? Hell no. But I restrict my meat purchases to those where I know how and where the animal was raised and slaughtered, or to wild meat. 

Regarding dogfood thats 'sustainable'... Great. I'd love to encounter a dog owner who actually only fed such things to a dog; fact is, if you're an animal lover you can't make any kind of argument whatsoever for feeding any other kind of meat to a pet. If there were any way to find out the truth I'd suggest a sporting wager that none of those complaining in the media about cyclists and dogs are actually that consciencious.



> As for dogs on the lead, I don't really see why they shouldn't be off the lead in a public space provided the animal is controlled. A public space is just that, it doesn't belong to one activity more than another.



Controlled but off the lead? In a space occupied by moving vehicles, children, and those who simply don't like dogs? You mean, its fine to exclude others by letting dogs run about, because the freedom of dog owners is more important than everyone else? Thats rich.



> Defecation in public: Well, if the diet is good, dog poo can be picked up and disposed of quite easily. If not, wet wipes can be used.



Yes, leaving a smear of untreate fecal matter. How the heck is that okay?



> Personally I'd rather see people out excercising their dogs and keeping themselves fit and healthy and there's lots of studies which show the benefits of owning a dog for this.



And there is a hundred and fifty years of bacteriology telling us the dangers of untreated feces from dogs, and millenia of examples of dogs causing harm to people when uncontrolled. Delightful animals, for the owners, disease carrying, threatening pests for others. 



> I would admit that some dog owners are less than good but hey some cyclists aren't so wonderful either.



I've yet to meet a cyclist who left smears of s14t all over the ground and who acted virtuous for doing so.


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

You plainly don't like dogs so I'm not sure there's any worth in discussing this further. 

You're also ignoring what I've written and are just re-stating the same things again.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

I don't think you're winning Cab over here Crackle.

My dog is the first I've ever owned - I think he's splendid, and I rather like other people's dogs too, I have to admit. Of course *rationally* that makes no sense having read Cab's postings, and I've decided that I'll look at him funny every now and then, just so he knows I disapprove of him. 

I'll give myself the odd fisheye in the mirror too, just so I don't get too happy about things.


----------



## Mr Pig (24 Sep 2008)

Don't you just hate other people?


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> I don't think you're winning Cab over here Crackle.
> 
> My dog is the first I've ever owned - I think he's splendid, and I rather like other people's dogs too, I have to admit. Of course *rationally* that makes no sense having read Cab's postings, and I've decided that I'll look at him funny every now and then, just so he knows I disapprove of him.
> 
> I'll give myself the odd fisheye in the mirror too, just so I don't get too happy about things.



Yes our first too. I'm also perfectly aware that people don't like dogs, so he's been trained from a pup to obey commands when out.

I don't think anyones ever won Cab over have they, he's an immovable object.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Don't you just hate other people?



Honestly, in general no. Something odd happens to people that drive cars, but they're generally quite nice when you encounter them in other situations.



Crackle said:


> Yes our first too. I'm also perfectly aware that people don't like dogs, so he's been trained from a pup to obey commands when out.



It's not enough. Frown at yourself in a mirror a couple of times tomorrow, and we'll not mention it again.


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

Nope I refuse to feel any guilt for owning a dog. Incidentally JTM, keep him regulalry wormed and he won't carry the Toxocara in his faeces which is the main public health concern with dogs.


----------



## John the Monkey (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Incidentally JTM, keep him regulalry wormed and he won't carry the Toxocara in his faeces which is the main public health concern with dogs.


We have a great local vet who filled us in on all that stuff, so the little chap is bang up to date, and will remain so.

Here he is, incidentally;


----------



## 4F (24 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Nope I refuse to feel any guilt for owning a dog. Incidentally JTM, keep him regulalry wormed and he won't carry the Toxocara in his faeces which is the main public health concern with dogs.



Unfortunatly its a few bad dog owners that give the rest of us a bad name. Bit like cyclists who jump red lights


----------



## BentMikey (24 Sep 2008)

My last dog would like nothing better than a bowl full of raw entrails and tripe. None of this mucky processed cooked meat and veg.


----------



## Crackle (24 Sep 2008)

He's a cracker JTM. Do him another favour if you haven't already and buy him the proper non-rendered dried dog foods. Contrary to popular belief, dogs need stuff like rice and veg too.

Edit: not all dried stuff is non-rendered.


----------



## 4F (24 Sep 2008)

After our last faithfull mate passed away last year we picked up a 3 year old labrador bitch on Monday and she is a cracker


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> You plainly don't like dogs so I'm not sure there's any worth in discussing this further.



Actually I love dogs. They're wonderful animals. Its the inherent hypocrisy of dog owners that I have a problem with.



> You're also ignoring what I've written and are just re-stating the same things again.



No, I'm not. Please, point out which of your points I have ignored.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Nope I refuse to feel any guilt for owning a dog. Incidentally JTM, keep him regulalry wormed and he won't carry the Toxocara in his faeces which is the main public health concern with dogs.



Fantastic, thats the worms sorted out. Just a hideous cocktail of enteric bacteria to be concerned with.

The idea that wiping the ground with a bit of tissue or a plastic bag will effectively sanitise grass exposed to raw dog s41t is, if you'll excuse me, barking. By all means, keep a pet for your own entertainment; how is exposing others to untreated residue of your carnivores excreta (orders of magnitude more dubious than the fairly inocuous droppings of a horse) fair?


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

anyone seen the article in this weeks Time Out's letter page. There was a letter saying how bad it wsa people were using the towpath to cycle along and how they would ding their bells at walkers! Aweful! Don't know about you, but i ding my bell not in a GET OUT THE WAY type of ding, but a "Hiya, im approaching from behind shortly at a slow speed, but just be aware of that incase you want to wave your arms and bags around for some reason".


----------



## BentMikey (25 Sep 2008)

LOL, Jake, too true. I totally see how it's easy to wrongly interpret bell ringing though, from the other side. It's why I call out a cheery good morning or evening instead.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

your too good to be true! Are you really felicity kendal in disguise?


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Unfortunatly its a few bad dog owners that give the rest of us a bad name. Bit like cyclists who jump red lights




Must admit I like dogs...(Never owned one though)

Recently I was traveling home from Liverpool Street on a 315 (train) and generally sit by the sliding doors non platform side with my bike and this sort of well big dog (dunno what breed it was) was sitting with his mouth on the floor right next to me...no trouble at all.Lovely big thing.

I must admit I was a bit nervous at first as you never know if they are going to start barking or the like.


----------



## domtyler (25 Sep 2008)

gbb said:


> The petfood industry i worked in used sustainable meat...but not in the sense you'd think. Sustainable, in the sense there's a never ending supply of waste and offal that we would never eat. There's nothing fussy or caring about it.
> 
> Lungs, viscera, blood (by the tanker load), rabbits heads (by the lorry load), fish heads and spine (by the lorry load), even kangaroo or wallaby heads ...absolutely (or at least virtually) NOTHING gets wasted.
> Cretins that eat this stuff to try to prove a point are just that..cretins. I've seen the maggots, the gunk and shite that gets used...even in Sheba, a premium product.
> ...



I remember once when I was in India taking a trip down the Ganges in Varanasi and was treated to the sight of human corpses being hungrily devoured by the stray dogs there.


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

Perhaps they were hungry?


----------



## pinkkaz (25 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> anyone seen the article in this weeks Time Out's letter page. There was a letter saying how bad it wsa people were using the towpath to cycle along and how they would ding their bells at walkers! Aweful! Don't know about you, but i ding my bell not in a GET OUT THE WAY type of ding, but a "Hiya, im approaching from behind shortly at a slow speed, but just be aware of that incase you want to wave your arms and bags around for some reason".



True! Before I started cycling it used to relally piss me off when cyclists "dinged" you.

Now I know better... but I still don't like to ding.

(and I don't have a bell. Whoops! Must get one)


----------



## BentMikey (25 Sep 2008)

Lawks Cab, you're very passionate about *everything*.


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

I had a motorcyclist revving his engine up yesterday and this used to pee me off but I have actually started to find it useful.


----------



## domtyler (25 Sep 2008)

I prefer the AirZound to a little bell, far more effective at scattering peds I find!


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

do you wear your Hannibal mask too?


----------



## LOGAN 5 (25 Sep 2008)

Running in the park once and an off the lead and clearly out of control dog in a public place thought he'd take a bite out of my leg. Not a word from the owner until I swung around and made to kick the ***ing thing then he shouted a load of abuse at me because I'd dared to stop his dog biting me 

Some dog owners are awful - not all of course but a fair proportion especially those who don't pick up their dog's mess.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

you should rdie throug the poo remembering to take your mudguard off first, so that it flys back into their faces! (why am i so angry, deep breaths)


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (25 Sep 2008)

Re the article on canal towpath cyclists - I got moaned at the other day for cycling on the towpath.... and it was by a dog owner. 

I could see the dog owner and his spaniel walking up ahead and I went really really slowly and then as I was just behind them I went really wide to overtake them - seriously not at more than 4/5 mph - the bloke shouted at me that I shouldnt' be on the path etc etc and muttered on and on as I rode away. 

I'm not sure what the regulation is but I would have thought that there was room for everyone - with care - on the towpath? 

Can't bloody win can we:-

On the road - get on the pavement you stupid b*tch.... or bibbed at constantly just for being there!?
On the pavement - illegal.
Cycle paths - For a start what cycle paths and secondly - why do they just end?! No warning, nothing! Whoops where did that cycle path go?
Parks - watch me dog FFS.
Canals - watch me dog FFS.

The list is endless really! 

Just my Thursday afternoon rant really!

Oh and by the way I LOVE dogs and am forever nagging my husband to let us have one - my motto is never trust a man who doesn't like a dog!! (Hubby likes them by the way just not the vets bills!)


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

well there is a sign at the top end of the towpath saying dogs wshould be kept on a lead, and clean up after your dog poo!


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

domtyler said:


> I prefer the AirZound to a little bell, far more effective at scattering peds I find!



I find my new double horn sound* very effective...It does actually fool motorists at a guess that they think they are being honked by another car.

*=The idea was thought up after yet more peds didn't see me and I blew the horn on the wrong side.I had two buttons now joined into one.

Airzound was good but half the time it was flat or I forgot to fill it up.


----------



## Auntie Helen (25 Sep 2008)

I'm a dog owner and cyclist and can see both sides of the argument.

My dog, being a weimaraner, is rather keen on chasing 'prey' and that used to include cyclists and skaters. Obviously I did my utmost to prevent this (and we seem to pretty much have it sorted now) but whilst we were training her out of this behaviour (she was a second-hand dog) we had a few lapses. The main reason was that bikes are so dead quiet. We'd be ambling along in the park, dog off the lead of course, and suddenly a bike would whizz past me. I don't mind that, the path's wide enough, only Lucy Locket would then take off after them for a race. It was always just a race, nothing vicious, but of course the poor cyclist didn't know that!

I used to regularly check around the park that there weren't cyclists coming but one or two would be so quick or would have been briefly hidden behind trees or something that they would get past me unawares. I was always very apologetic but I know it wasn't fun for the cyclist.

As I hinted earlier, Lucy Locket has now been trained out of that habit (every time a cyclist appeared on the horizon I called her to me, made her sit, the cyclist went past whilst she was sitting and she then got a treat). In fact she quite likes cyclists because it usually means she comes to me and gets a treat. But it wasn't particularly easy with a grown dog and the occasional lapses when I didn't hear/see cyclists coming didn't help the training programme.

There are, of course, irresponsible dog owners who just let them roam and hassle everyone. I would hope most responsible cyclists are also responsible dog owners.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

sounds great, wish there were more peole like you. The inline skatter, is that what they are called? got hunted down and attacked by one of those council estate dogs while he was zooming down the road one evening! lots of cuts and grazes


----------



## Crackle (25 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Fantastic, thats the worms sorted out. Just a hideous cocktail of enteric bacteria to be concerned with.
> 
> The idea that wiping the ground with a bit of tissue or a plastic bag will effectively sanitise grass exposed to raw dog s41t is, if you'll excuse me, barking. By all means, keep a pet for your own entertainment; how is exposing others to untreated residue of your carnivores excreta (orders of magnitude more dubious than the fairly inocuous droppings of a horse) fair?



Enteric bacteria is also determined by what you feed your dog. Give it a decent diet, keep it wormed and you reduce this massively. For instance Salmonella is common in rendered foods so if you don't feed your dog rendered food you don't pass it on to him.

Aside from cleaning up after your dog so that there's know trace of faeces what else do you suggest, have a street cleaner follow you.

As for hypocrisy, that's quite laughable, sorry it is. Name any activity or interest which you do and I'll point out the hypocrisy involved in it, including cycling. 

I'm glad you like dogs, I was beginning to form the impression that you lived in a joyless world, now I just think you take joy from crushing other peoples enjoyment.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Lawks Cab, you're very passionate about *everything*.



I'm not, but you can rest assured that if I open my mouth on a subject I probably mean it. I can rarely be arsed otherwise.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Enteric bacteria is also determined by what you feed your dog. Give it a decent diet, keep it wormed and you reduce this massively. For instance Salmonella is common in rendered foods so if you don't feed your dog rendered food you don't pass it on to him.



The bactarial flora of the intestinal tract of any mammal with a mixed diet will contain bacteria that, if they get in via cuts, abraisions or through ingestion, get up to no good. Fact. Deal with it.

If you take your dog out and it s1hts then you're spreading bacteria that are potentially harmful and _no amount of changing diet_ can prevent it. 



> Aside from cleaning up after your dog so that there's know trace of faeces what else do you suggest, have a street cleaner follow you.



You cannot clean up the bacterial by any practical means and cleaning the area properly. If you don't do that then you're basically saying to the world that they just have to put up with your animals s41t spreading bacteria about. Don't believe me? Go ahead, take a smear from the site where you've 'cleaned' the dog muck and grow it up on, say, nutrient agar. See what you get. 



> As for hypocrisy, that's quite laughable, sorry it is. Name any ctivity or interest which you do and I'll point out the hypocrisy involved in it, including cycling.



Go on then, tell me, how does cycling make me a hypocrite?

The truth is that if you're an animal lover and you keep a carnivorous pet fed on any intensively farmed foods (which means commercial dogfoods, unless you've been out and seen for yourself the standards to which the meat was produced) then you're a hypocrite. To put one animal (or many) through the barbarism that is factory farming to feed another is the antithesis of being an animal lover. Its blatant hypocrisy.



> I'm glad you like dogs, I was beginning to form the impression that you lived in a joyless world, now I just think you take joy from crushing other peoples enjoyment.



Ooh, how melodromatic. And your mother smells like elderberries. Happy now?


----------



## Origamist (25 Sep 2008)

Very informative - you certainly know a lot about sh1t, Cab...!


----------



## Crackle (25 Sep 2008)

Well first I'm not an animal lover. All animals have a purpose including my dog. 

Secondly I eat intensively farmed foods myself and, I repeat, 'cause you don't seem to get it. I don't feed my dog rendered foods. ergo I have no issues with feeding him. I also have no issues with people feeding their dogs commercial foods if they so choose. I would advise them not to for many reasons but if they choose to do so that's up to them.

Thirdly, so dogs produce bacteria. Lots of other things do to, including humans. Next time you've got a cold make sure you stay indoors so you don't spread it, because you might justy kill some old lady with it. I'd also advise you to be vary careful next time you're cleaning your wheelie bin. I assume you do clean it don't you, what with all the bacteria in there and what not?

The fact is you have an unreasonable dislike of people who have dogs. You are unable to deal with or acknowledge that people can act responsibly with dogs. Instead you tar everyone with the same brush and hide your dislike behind a smokescreen of toxicology. Go on admit it.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

groan.


----------



## 4F (25 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> groan.



This thread really has gone down hill once the dog hater arrived


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

Origamist said:


> Very informative - you certainly know a lot about sh1t, Cab...!



You might say I've had professional dealings with sh1t


----------



## magnatom (25 Sep 2008)

Umm.... Is it worth pointing out that every animal, including our lovely variety of wildlife will be leaving little messages around in the great outdoors. Should be be teaching our foxes to wipe their bottoms....


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Well first I'm not an animal lover. All animals have a purpose including my dog.
> 
> Secondly I eat intensively farmed foods myself and, I repeat, 'cause you don't seem to get it.



In which case your 'morals' and mine are irreconcilable; you believe that it is appropriate to intensively farm animals to feed both yourself and your dog, and you don't give a fig for the health implications for other people associated with your recreation. I believe that we have a collective responsibility to each other than that animal welfare matters. I wouldn't say that I consider my moral stance superior to yours... Actually, what am I talking about, yes, I really would say that I find your moral position indefensible. 

End of.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> Umm.... Is it worth pointing out that every animal, including our lovely variety of wildlife will be leaving little messages around in the great outdoors. Should be be teaching our foxes to wipe their bottoms....



There are several differences, of course. Not the least of which being that dogs are excercised in the same place that people excercise, serving no ecololgical function.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

good link


----------



## swee'pea99 (25 Sep 2008)

I don't suppose it makes any difference, Cab, that the actual harm done by all these vicious bacteria is...well...I guess it must be somewhere between zero and as near to bugger all as makes no difference, while the pleasure and mental health benefits dogs bring their owners - including innumerable pensioners and many lonely people - are immense.

No, thought not...


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

swee said:


> The problem here is that 'mental health' is the new 'infectious disease'. It is perceived that if you've got a bug you go to the doctor, he gives you pills, you get better, but thats very much part of the problem we have with regard to the massive increase in antibiotic resistance and the actually quite shocking rate of enteric infections we have in the Western world. What people fear instead of infectious disease is 'mental illness', which matters of course, but it ain't the be all and end all.
> 
> I like dogs, but I require of any owner of any animal, vehicle or anything else for that matter that they behave in such a way as to minimise risk to others; if you believe that spreading canine fecal matter with a plastic bag and taking most but not all of it away is actually minimising risk for others then you are, simply, wrong.


----------



## mr_cellophane (26 Sep 2008)

I was going along Cable Street by the Tower last week. There is a wide pavement and a moderate 2 lane cycle path. I was following a couple on MTBs. On one stretch there were road works on the pavement leaving only the CP to be shared. An elderly lady was walking along with 3 small terriers on leads and had reached this point at the same time as us. The man on the MTB tried to bully her off the CP, came right up close to her and rang his bell. The works were only for about 7 metres so he would only have been held up for a couple of seconds or, if he was in that much of a hurry, the road was empty.


----------



## swee'pea99 (26 Sep 2008)

Well, like I said, thought not...


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

swee said:


> and disinfect[/i]* sites soiled by their pets, there is no rational argument against that unless you believe that exposing others to needless risk is reasonable.
> 
> And into this moral mess falls a request for cyclsits not to mow down Mr Fluffypoosh while he's defacating off the lead.
> 
> ...


----------



## BentMikey (26 Sep 2008)

When you commit to a point of view, Cab, you're like a bull terrier. All grip, fight, and not enough thought, IMO.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> When you commit to a point of view, Cab, you're like a bull terrier. All grip, fight, and not enough thought, IMO.



This point is entirely thought through; its not like anyone disputes the bacteriology, its clearly true. The risk is irrefutable. That we're asked to simply stomach that for others entertainment... Why? I mean, I'm not asked to poisoning for the right of others to eat fugu, why are we asked to risk infection for the right of others not to disinfect their own pets mess.


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> In which case your 'morals' and mine are irreconcilable; you believe that it is appropriate to intensively farm animals to feed both yourself and your dog, and you don't give a fig for the health implications for other people associated with your recreation. I believe that we have a collective responsibility to each other than that animal welfare matters. I wouldn't say that I consider my moral stance superior to yours... Actually, what am I talking about, yes, I really would say that I find your moral position indefensible.
> 
> End of.



Yes end of as I knock down your last point in your rather narrow and blinkered point of view.

So you don't eat cooked chickens, kebabs, KFC, burgers, hot dogs etc... the list is long but you don't eat them, you never have and you never will.

I eat the best I can afford and get. Same with my dog, I pay more for his food and get him the best available. Since you waded in, I've been trying to find out more where that food comes from. I'll let you know the results but I am fairly certain it's not rendered crap.

You clearly have issues Cab. Your inability to acknowledge other people views, thoughts or feelings when more than one person has said how willing they are to control their dog to take into account others views has no impact on you.

Once again you've repeated your views on dog bacteria and not put into any kind of perpsective which people can actually judge it on. C'mon, give us a scale, some examples. At least then we can gain some perspective.


----------



## swee'pea99 (26 Sep 2008)

Visions of people pursuing their pussy-cats over the rooftops in the light of the moon, with a wet-wipe and a bottle of Dettol....

Owooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

Crackle said:


> Yes end of as I knock down your last point in your rather narrow and blinkered point of view.
> 
> So you don't eat cooked chickens, kebabs, KFC, burgers, hot dogs etc... the list is long but you don't eat them, you never have and you never will.



Nope. I don't. Never have? Not since I started making my own informed choices on food. Never will? Well, don't plan to.



> I eat the best I can afford and get.



I'd sooner be a vegetarian than live on factory farmed meat; morality isn't something you can or should abandon just in favour of having a more interesting diet. Besides, by shopping smart (direct from producers) I get ethical meat for less than the price of factory farmed rubbish in supermarkets. There is no economic argument for eating factory farmed meat; to do so is not a necessity, and it is avoidable by careful shopping.



> Same with my dog, I pay more for his food and get him the best available. Since you waded in, I've been trying to find out more where that food comes from. I'll let you know the results but I am fairly certain it's not rendered crap.



Rendered? When did I ever mentione rendered food? What matters with regard to animal welfare is how it is raised, not what happens afterwards. You don't know the source of the meat fed to your animals? Shocking, in my view.



> You clearly have issues Cab.




(further cut unread)

Thats the third dig; three strikes, I'm just not reding anything you write on this topic until you quit the personal sniping. Re-post without and I'll consider it.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Visions of people pursuing their pussy-cats over the rooftops in the light of the moon, with a wet-wipe and a bottle of Dettol....

Owooooooooooooooooooo![/QUOTE]

If you can't stop a pet from defacating all over the place, don't have that pet. I've a right not to have cat s41t in my garden or in the street, I have a right to know that other peoples pets aren't dafacating in the food I'm growing to eat. Such represnets a real risk; why should someone be allowed to force that on their neighbours?


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

That's a convenient way of not answering the questions you don't want to answer then.

I buy dog food which is certified under the following scheme http://www.bahnm.org.uk/tech_info.html but you're quite right I don't know the foods source and now I'd like to.

So how about putting that bacteriology into perspective and as the subject is dogs, excluding cats.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Please, will everyone stop rubbing cabs face in it. I think this is the problem...


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> If you can't stop a pet from defacating all over the place, don't have that pet. I've a right not to have cat s41t in my garden or in the street, I have a right to know that other peoples pets aren't dafacating in the food I'm growing to eat. Such represnets a real risk; why should someone be allowed to force that on their neighbours?



So your all for a cull of hedgehogs, foxes, rats, birds etc. These all defecate in peoples gardens. If you don't advocate this, then what is the difference in someone keeping a pet? Cab you really are sounding a bit crazy here!


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Sep 2008)

By point of law cats are considered to be feral so you have to exempt them, I think people should clean up their dogs poo though.


----------



## Jake (26 Sep 2008)

i think the argument has got to the stage where neither of the 2 parties can back down, both have to save face so can't let it go. Send in the UN negotiators. The argument is getting anyone anywhere, nothing is being resolved. Some dog owners are bed, some are good. THE END.


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> i think the argument has got to the stage where neither of the 2 parties can back down, both have to save face so can't let it go. Send in the UN negotiators. The argument is getting anyone anywhere, nothing is being resolved. Some dog owners are bed, some are good. THE END.




Nah not yet. I want to get to the bottom of Cab's argumant and quantify the issues he describes.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> I've a right not to have cat s41t in my garden or in the street,



Actually you don't have any such right, in fact your position with regards animals pooping in your garden is morally reprehensible purely based on you growing your own food as you instantly exclude the rights of other creatures that have occupied the land for a much longer period that man, your position seems to be that you are against the exploitation of animals but if they poop in your cabage patch then they have no right to exist.

NIMBY'ism at its worst wouldn't you say?


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

Ok. I'll tell you why your posts are irritating me and why I'm accusing you of having issues, whilst at the same time you're accusing me of getting personal and not answering my questions.



Cab said:


> We're asked to take it easy to avoid spooking a bunch of *dangerous and potentially aggressive carnivores* that are kept purely as entertainment and overfed on factory farmed meat by 'animal lovers'?



Emotive, sweeping, generalised. The equivalent of saying all cyclists jump red lights and should be banned to cycle paths.

This makes you a hypocrite.




Cab said:


> Ahh, yes, slow down because you might upset Fifi-Tricksypoos, or whatever else the *rat on a string* is called



More emotive language showing a clear distaste of dogs and insulting anyone who owns one. The equivalent of saying people who commute on bikes are nothing more than two wheeled terrorists. 

Again hypocritical.



Cab said:


> Its a pet, *little more than a toy* for most folk living in towns. I'll do my best not to hit any obstruction, but I no more accept the presence of such a dog in my way as appropriate any more than *I accept someone doing a jigsaw on the pavement*.



demeaning, judgemental and the last statement clearly demonstrates your intolerance of other people and other activities. Sounds like there's one way to live life - Cab's way.

Hypocritical again.

So you introduced the emotive language, tarred all dog owners with the same brush and generally declared yourself anti-dog, which I'm having trouble reconciling with your "I like dogs, I think they're wondeful animals"



Cab said:


> Absolutely. Live and let live. I've no truck whatsoever with a dog owner who doesn't feed their pet with factory farmed meat (yes, thats pretty much all of the commercial brands of dog food) and whose dog does not defacate in public, and who does not let their ultimately unpredictable animal off the lead where there are moving vehicles.
> 
> You know of such a dog owner?





Cab said:


> Vegetarian? Hell no. But I restrict my meat purchases to those where I know how and where the animal was raised and slaughtered, or to wild meat.



Emotivelly expressed but in fact you have actually made a proper debating point and I'm willing to concede it.

95% of dog owners feed their dog commercial petfoods and if they bothered reading the bumf, they'd know they allowing their dogs to eat other peoples dead pets.

But you have chosen not to respond at all to me saying I feed my own dog the best I can get nor have you acknowledged that there are people who care what they give their animals and that this is a growing trend. Instead we're all still lumped into same morally irreprehensible and unjustifiable behaviour group.



Cab said:


> Regarding dogfood thats 'sustainable'... Great. I'd love to encounter a dog owner who actually only fed such things to a dog; fact is, if you're an animal lover you can't make any kind of argument whatsoever for feeding any other kind of meat to a pet. If there were any way to find out the truth I'd suggest a sporting wager that none of those complaining in the media about cyclists and dogs are actually that consciencious.



Assumptive and you know we can't know that so you're on safe ground here and can use it to justify your overall anti-dog view without actually going to the bother of proof.




Cab said:


> Controlled but off the lead? In a space occupied by moving vehicles, children, and those who simply don't like dogs? You mean, its fine to exclude others by letting dogs run about, because the freedom of dog owners is more important than everyone else? Thats rich.



Fantastic statement. Once again dog owners have less rights as human beings than cyclists. So dog owners are really a menace, more of a menace than children, roller-skaters, kite flyers etc...

Once again unsubstantiated, generalised, blinkered moralizing.





Cab said:


> Yes, leaving a smear of untreate fecal matter. How the heck is that okay?
> 
> And there is a hundred and fifty years of bacteriology telling us the dangers of untreated feces from dogs, and millenia of examples of dogs causing harm to people when uncontrolled. Delightful animals, for the owners, disease carrying, threatening pests for others.






Cab said:


> I like dogs, but I require of any owner of any animal, vehicle or anything else for that matter that they behave in such a way as to minimise risk to others; if you believe that spreading canine fecal matter with a plastic bag and taking most but not all of it away is actually minimising risk for others then you are, simply, wrong.



Another proper debating point, so let's have a debate. Quantify the public health problems posed by dog faeces and let's compare the mental health and excercise benefits gained from owning a dog and the costs to the NHS and society in general of each of those.

Once again, you fail to acknowledge people who are acting responsibly. It doesn't matter according to you, tarred with the same brush again.



Cab said:


> *We don't have pets in society because it is practical, we have them because we're sentimental*. Viewed rationally pet owners should be required to clean _and disinfect_* sites soiled by their pets, there is no rational argument against that unless you believe that exposing others to needless risk is reasonable.



They serve no purpose other than sentimentality in your book then. Well let's see that doesn't fit into why I have a dog. 

1.) I wanted my youngest to get over his fear of dogs
2) I wanted my children to learn about the responsibilities of looking after an animal
3) There are excellent health benefits of owning a dog, including excercise and mental wellbeing

Oh! I left out sentimentality - that's because I'm not but that doesn't fit your world view does it.



Cab said:


> *Yes, that means you too cat people.



off-topic - diversionary at best

So we're down to fecal matter. Let's hear the facts please. Quantify it.


----------



## jamesgibby (26 Sep 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Actually you don't have any such right, in fact your position with regards animals pooping in your garden is morally reprehensible purely based on you growing your own food as you instantly exclude the rights of other creatures that have occupied the land for a much longer period that man, your position seems to be that you are against the exploitation of animals but if they poop in your cabage patch then they have no right to exist.
> 
> NIMBY'ism at its worst wouldn't you say?



If you have most other vermin in your garden you can get the council to come and exterminate them. I vote for classifying cats as vermin if they are in my garden. Especially after coming home to find my wife in tears when she was pregnant because she got cat poo on her hands when gardening. She has not had a vegetable garden since. If a dog traumatised a pregnant woman like that the owner would get abuse, but I guess it is fine for cat owners.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Sep 2008)

What if it was fox poo or hedgehog poo? People don't own cats, cats own people.


----------



## jamesgibby (26 Sep 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> What if it was fox poo or hedgehog poo? People don't own cats, cats own people.



I obviously can't say for certain it was cat poo on that occasion however my wife did see a cat pooing in the same place the next day


----------



## mangaman (26 Sep 2008)

gbb wrote


> Lungs, viscera, blood (by the tanker load), rabbits heads (by the lorry load), fish heads and spine (by the lorry load), even kangaroo or wallaby heads



Thanks gbb - I'm just back from the shops and I've got all the ingredients

Could you post the recipe - I'm getting hungry 

PS they were out of Wallaby so I had to get duck billed platypus


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> So your all for a cull of hedgehogs, foxes, rats, birds etc. These all defecate in peoples gardens. If you don't advocate this, then what is the difference in someone keeping a pet? Cab you really are sounding a bit crazy here!



Hedgehogs, no, while they're smelly little things which seem to manage to produce feces as big as they are (go on, watch a hedgehog carpping, its a startling sight, as I discovered last winter while nursing a sick hedgehog till Spring), the specific risk associated with hedgehogs is tiny, partly because they carry few organisms pathogenic in humans and also because they're really rather shy; a hedgehog taking a dump out in the open (rather than in deep undergrowth) is a rare thing. Foxes in cities, perhaps - when they get a bit too familiar with people there is risk associated with that. Foxes in rural areas, no, the risk is negligible mostly for the same reason as hedgehogs. Rats, yes, they spread all manner of diseases and we've become far too blase about that. Birds, no, with the proviso that the risk _does_ increase when you get overpopulations of specific species feeding on human waste, and where this _does_ occur we already do cull and otherwise try to control the population.

I wouldn't blanket wipe-out wildlife or pets in cities, I maintain that the correct approach is to think about our interraction with animals on a species by species basis and, right now, we're far too lenient on allowing domestic pets to defacate all over the place.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Actually you don't have any such right,




Legally you're correct. Morally, though, I think that my right not to have to clean up after someone elses pet is entirely clearcut.



> in fact your position with regards animals pooping in your garden is morally reprehensible purely based on you growing your own food as you instantly exclude the rights of other creatures that have occupied the land for a much longer period that man,



I don't claim that it is immoral to kill animals or restrict their habitat, nor do I equate animal welfare with human welfare, nor even do I claim that wild animals that get there on their own have got no 'rights'. Domestic cats and dogs aren't defensible on any of those grounds anyway; they're over-fed, outside of normal ecological checks on their populations, they exist purely for peoples entertainment. Fine, by all means have a pet for your entertainment, but your moral right to do so ends when excercising that right infringes on the rights of others. 



> your position seems to be that you are against the exploitation of animals but if they poop in your cabage patch then they have no right to exist.



I'm not against the 'expoitation' of animals, not at all. I'm against bad animal husbandry (so I'll eat meat with great delight if it was raised to good standards or was from the wild), and quite simply to allow your livestock to soil public areas in such a fashion is bad husbandry.



> NIMBY'ism at its worst wouldn't you say?



Not at all, its probably the most practical and decent form of NIMBYism that you can encounter. You may not mind peoples pets messing all over your home and garden, I do.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> I wouldn't blanket wipe-out wildlife or pets in cities, I maintain that the correct approach is to think about our interraction with animals on a species by species basis and, right now, we're far too lenient on allowing domestic pets to defacate all over the place.




But cab, what your saying is that cleaning up after a dog isn't good enough. Your suggesting that the small amounts of material left behind are a serious health risk. Sorry mate that's rubbish. Sure the material left behind will contain bacteria etc. Yes some of it is potentially dangerous. That is why when gardening, you should wear gloves and/or wash your hands afterwards. Very simple. 

Your suggestion that folk should not be able to keep pets is outragous and ignores the sgnificant benefits that pets provide (I don't have any pets myself). As for only having sentimental value..... guide dogs, dogs for the hard of hearing, dogs that provide real or a sense of security for the vulnerable, dogs that teach children how to look after and respect animals.... etc.

Cab, yer on a hiding to nothing here.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> But cab, what your saying is that cleaning up after a dog isn't good enough.



Yep, you really need to disinfect. Why carrying a disinfectant spray is too much to ask of dog owners, or instead training them to defacate at a defined location (like the owners own garden) is too much to ask is beyond me.



> Your suggesting that the small amounts of material left behind are a serious health risk. Sorry mate that's rubbish.



No it isn't. If it is an area where people eat, or where children play, there is a real risk of transmission of fecal bacteria, causing infection. Don't take my word for it, try it out; go borrow a few plates from someone in the hospital and take some smears from the site where someone has just cleaned up their dogs mess. The counts are huge.



> Sure the material left behind will contain bacteria etc. Yes some of it is potentially dangerous. That is why when gardening, you should wear gloves and/or wash your hands afterwards. Very simple.



You should wear gloves and/or wash after gardening for many reasons, not least of which is contact with feces. But in a park, in a street etc. people _do_ touch things, and bacteria from fecal matter spread were people walk and touch objects. Pioneering work was done on this waaaaay back as far as the 1950s with model organisms such as _Bacillus gobigii_ and _Serratea marcescens_, chosen because the colour of colonies of these bacteria makes them distinctive.



> Your suggestion that folk should not be able to keep pets is outragous and ignores the sgnificant benefits that pets provide (I don't have any pets myself).



I don't oppose pet ownership, I oppose irresponsible pet ownership, and leaving smears of feces in public is irresponsible. If its a dog, how hard can it _possibly_ be to carry a disinfectant spray? If its a cat, is it impossible to train it strictly to defacate in a litter tray and not in public? If it can't be thus trained, how is it reasonable to expect other people to clean up the mess for you?



> As for only having sentimental value..... guide dogs, dogs for the hard of hearing, dogs that provide real or a sense of security for the vulnerable, dogs that teach children how to look after and respect animals.... etc.[/quote
> 
> Working animals? Again, if the owners are responsible, I've no problem with that at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Maybe; I'm right though.



OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?

Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches. 

Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!


----------



## Jake (26 Sep 2008)

how about horse poo from police horses? loads of it along the towpath, BIG dollops.


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> how about horse poo from police horses? loads of it along the towpath, BIG dollops.




Generally if eats grass, it's safe i.e. you can put it on your plants. If it eats meat, you can't and it will contain harmful parasites and bacteria so don't go around collecting bear poo as fertilizer for instance.


----------



## Jake (26 Sep 2008)

ah yes, great for Roses, so dad said.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?



I doubt whether anyone has collected data specifically on that for best part of a century; the risk associated with untreated fecal matter has been understood since before Pasteur demonstrated germ theory, and to the best of my knowledge no one has deconvoluted the stats on enteric (and other) infections to that level of detail. But, really, who would? That contact with fecal matter is associated with disease is beyond reasonable dispute, thats why dog owners are required to clean up after their pets; wiping _most_ of it up reduces the unpleasantness, but it doesn't remove all fo the bacteria present. You don't find publications specifically on that, but such is rudimentary bacteriology. Do you _honestly_ dispute that, and do you _really_ doubt that on which the public health acts (and indeed a century and a half of public health) are based?



> Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches.



Depends on what anti-bacterials you're looking at. My weapon of choice would be 70% alcohol, which when applied in the environment is entirely harmless.



> Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!



Actually, if you're defining any working animals as 'pets' then it is your own definition that is at fault. A guide dog is _not_ a definition of a pet, nor is (for example) a gun dog. A pet is an animal kept merely for pleasure (like Lazarus, my giant African land snail).


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Cab,

Your post doesn't make any sense.

However if you are trying to suggest that antibacterials are used in lots of every day products etc...
I believe there are environmental and health risk that have yet to be fully understood with regards to the use of antibacterial products. That is why I avoid toothpaste, hand washing products etc that contains these chemicals. So I am certainly no hypocrite when it comes to this.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> Your post doesn't make any sense.



Does it make sense now that I've fixed it; it was posted incomplete (and gibberish) in error.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Does it make sense now that I've fixed it; it was posted incomplete (and gibberish) in error.




No. It doesn't.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

(going back to this post because you still maintain that my post made no sense)



magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> Your post doesn't make any sense.
> 
> However if you are trying to suggest that antibacterials are used in lots of every day products etc...



I didn't allude to that in any way. I suggested that disinfection should be required after removal of fecal matter, I didn't suggest anything akin to what you have described thus...



> I believe there are environmental and health risk that have yet to be fully understood with regards to the use of antibacterial products. That is why I avoid toothpaste, hand washing products etc that contains these chemicals. So I am certainly no hypocrite when it comes to this.



...in which you're referring to, say, SLS and similar? We've got many choices for disinfecting a site without bringing in anything even vaguely contentious, things with short lifetimes in the environment and proven records used as disinfectants where children play and people eat. Like I said, my weapon of choice as a disinfectant in such a situation would simply be 70% alcohol, it works suberbly well. 

What don't you get in my post?


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

Sometimes you just reach a point where continuing the discussion is obviously getting no-where. Personally I've reached that point and I no longer care.

You win.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Sep 2008)

Carry on Cab, keep at it. You're just proving me more right.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

> How do you manage in your hospital then Magna?
> 
> I hated that gel stuff when I worked in one. If you didn't wash the layer from each ward you visited off as soon as you got back to the office it started to peel your skin off.



Of course if I need to use it in hospital I will use it. It is vital for patient safety. However, I'd rather keep its use to a minimum at home, especially where the kids are concerned. It's one of those things that I think is completely unecessary. Do we really need antibacterial hand wash, toothpaste etc. I don't know a huge amount on the subject, but I understand that the use of some antibacterials in this way could contibute to increased resistance to antibacterials, and I know that at least one antibacterial contained in some toothpastes has environmental and health concerns.


It's this comment 

_A comprehensive analysis from the University of Oregon School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade anti-bacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.

_that swings it for me.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

> Fair enough.




I have to many bits of knowledege about to many things. One day I'll understand something completely!


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?
> 
> Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches.
> 
> Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!




Our local council once used the fact that dog doo can cause blindness in youngsters and the elderly possibly,so i think thats enough reason for animal owners to clean up properly after them,or teach the pets to do it in their own garden,and to say kids are at risk from antibacterial agents instead of dog doo is really rather silly in comparison,.
Cab makes a good point,if people cant clean up properly after their pets in public places,they shouldnt have them.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Our local council once used the fact that dog doo can cause blindness in youngsters and the elderly possibly,so i think thats enough reason for animal owners to clean up properly after them,or teach the pets to do it in their own garden,and to say kids are at risk from antibacterial agents instead of dog doo is really rather silly in comparison,.
> Cab makes a good point,if people cant clean up properly after their pets in public places,they shouldnt have them.




Uh-oh, cols here!

We haven't had a good 'discussion' in a long while. Have you been avoiding me?


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

That gel you use to clean your hands in hospital is used so you dont transfer something harmfull to anyone you have contact with,except c diff,or a certain strain of diorhea,you need soap and water for that,but using the gell on your hands doesnt in any way increase the bodies resistance to anything.Its just a way of helping to stop transfering something off your hands.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> Uh-oh, cols here!
> 
> We haven't had a good 'discussion' in a long while. Have you been avoiding me?




Nooo iv been tied up with certain things


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Our local council once used the fact that dog doo can cause blindness in youngsters and the elderly possibly,so i think thats enough reason for animal owners to clean up properly after them,or teach the pets to do it in their own garden,and to say kids are at risk from antibacterial agents instead of dog doo is really rather silly in comparison,.
> Cab makes a good point,if people cant clean up properly after their pets in public places,they shouldnt have them.



I totally agree Col. Define properly and quantify the risk and perhaps we'll actually come to some kind of useful conclusion - but I doubt it.


----------



## magnatom (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Nooo iv been tied up with certain things




Yeah I seem to have missed something. What's all this about you being alive. I assume this is a good thing?!?!


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> Yeah I seem to have missed something. What's all this about you being alive. I assume this is a good thing?!?!




Well the intent when it was said to me wasnt nice,but iv put it there to remind the person responsible how unpleasant it actually was to say,and maybe they cringe with embarrasment when they see it?


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Carry on Cab, keep at it. You're just proving me more right.



What, if I argue my point I'm in error for doing so, if I don't then what, I'm bottling out of answering points asked of me presumably? Sheesh, just _sometimes_...


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> It's this comment
> 
> _A comprehensive analysis from the University of Oregon School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade anti-bacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.
> 
> _that swings it for me.



That might have some weight in the discussion if anyone had suggested using triclosan (or, indeed, soap) to clean up dog muck


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> Yeah I seem to have missed something. What's all this about you being alive. I assume this is a good thing?!?!



I thought it was a quote from that song at the end of Portal.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

> No col, love, it wasn't unpleasant. And I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed. You were trying to claim that drivers could blame cyclists for the driver's own choices and actions. You also said that if a cyclist's actions, however appropriate or mild, led to a driver having a coronary then the cyclist would be responsible. So I apologised if my disagreeing with you had woudn you up sufficiently to resulted in your death.
> 
> It was an amusing retort to one of your absolutely ridiculous positions.
> 
> Leave your sig there as long as you like. It doesn't embarrass me and only makes you look a bit odd.



Of course it does deary
And apology accepted


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

> No s*** Sherlock.




Oo pet lamb,calm youself.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Sep 2008)

Cab, it's not about winning or losing, but it's about not taking the debate to the point of flogging a dead donkey. It's just a very negative way to come across, you could bail out with dignity much earlier by simply stopping posting, if necessary suggesting to agree to disagree. There's no need to have the last word on every issue.

Perhaps something that I'm also guilty of...


----------

