3,000 eggs abandoned after drone scares birds in California
abcnews.go.com
abcnews.go.com
On dogs, training and leashes only matter a little. The problem is birds immediately identify a dog as a dangerous predator. They are far less bothered by humans.
Birds pay more attention that we might realize. They identify potential threats from much farther away that we do. This leads to them being disturbed even when the casual rule-breaking dog walker thinks "I'm not doing anything wrong."
I'm extremely surprised so many birds abandoned their nests permanently. I would have expected only the closest nests to be abandoned.
Some people rely on their drones to tell them when they are in a no-fly zone. Terrible idea. Once at Hayward Regional Shoreline, I had to tell a guy that he was potentially creating a problem. I told him the two locations where endangered species can be found and that he should avoid -- and also that he was definitely within the limits of Hayward Regional Airport. He was both contrite and horrified that his drone didn't tell him.
They other issue is boundary-pushing. Literally. Give people a space, and many people will act like selfish toddlers and push the boundaries. Sunnyvale Baylands allows drones and it's a great space for them. There is a clearly marked fence they must not go beyond. So of course people constantly violate the fence. The fence is to a marshland with endangered species. Drones can fail, and a drone that falls into the marsh is not retrievable and then what happens to the toxins in the battery?
There's a big difference between a dangerous looking person passing you by on a busy street, and one that's standing on the sidewalk in front of your house, staring at your window for an hour.
Some birds are very neophobic. And some types of birds have less commitment to eggs than chicks -- a new nest and new eggs can be laid, but actual hatched chicks are much harder to abandon. Terns are very social, so a few abandoning their nests might easily lead to a mass exodus.
It has arrived and taken over the territory completely - so abandon the area.
My problem is if my conjecture is true, we basically have to ban drones ... everywhere.
While "eradication" evokes killing and hostility, many small island communities all over the world which cohabitate with rare and vulnerable bird species do ban or severely restrict the ownership of cats.
The permit in a case like this would require that I land safely if the presence of the drone alters the behaviour of the birds (even if they're staying on the ground, but bobbing their head). Here's a video below from a tiny, low island with a bird population in the tens of thousands, where a group of hikers have possibly spooked birds that are then flying towards the drone from the other side of the island. Most passed under the drone, suggesting they weren't concerned; I was keeping the drone still or moving slowly and predictably towards where I could land on the beach. This flock was going through for some time. I don't think these are terns, but there were crested terns on that island.
Troubridge Island birds: https://bit.ly/3z49lwm
I don't mean to discount the impact of drones, but I suspect that a repeated close drone presence is more likely to cause birds to abandon a nest than a crash. That is generally the concern with raptor nests where I live.
My thought when reading the article was that off-leash dogs might've had the main impact in abandonment of eggs, but that drones are more likely to make a headline for the story. Couldn't find an original press release, but every news headline is about drones.
^ Here's one encounter with a wedge-tailed eagle. It beat its wings perhaps to make sure it was clear but didn't seem to move its head at all. In other cases, they've not beaten their wings or moved their heads so weren't visibly bothered. https://bit.ly/3uVIvn5
And here's a whistling kite coming in to attack but then changing its mind at the last moment: https://bit.ly/3vTJ0za
Drone hackers: Consider the business opportunity here.
The poster you're replying to has already mentioned getting permits to fly near wildlife, and taking appropriate consideration for the welfare of the birds being filmed. It sounds like they're doing a fine job of flying responsibly, already.
I was picturing an island well off shore. It's right next to a highway! Not sure exactly which island in the complex held the eggs, but one is about 100m from a campground/RV park.
Your theory that dogs are the main cause just doesn’t make sense to me, birds can’t be so dumb that they leave their eggs to rot because a dog is walking around below them, why even bother evolving flight and nesting in trees?
A dog off-leash would rip through and harass ever bird in the vicinity as well as damage any egg they wanted to. The "island" looks like it's in a shallow swamp that a dog could run across easily enough, though someone mentioned the area is usually fenced.
Here's a video of me flying a drone slowly over a group of crested terns sitting on rocks (birds similar to those in the story). I am maybe six feet above them. The only time they really moved was when a large wave hit the rocks and they left and returned when it subsided. There are a few dozen birds under the drone, while others are returning after the wave washed through - you can see they are not particularly bothered by it. (Obviously a drone crashing into the ground would spook them more.)
Walking, dog, and bicycle restrictions are normal in wildlife refuges that prioritize being a wildlife refuge ahead of recreational use. Humans walking can be interpreted as a potential predation threat. Bicycling has a tall, loping aspect that checks off more of the "predator" boxes than walking. Dogs are always identified as an irrefutable predation threat by wildlife, on or off leash.
Drones peering into a bird nursury are likely to get a pretty similar reaction from birds as if it was a human nursury, minus the adults calling police or coming after you themselves. If parents decide there's a problem, they will abandon the nursury.
Thoughts?
“We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl said. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests.”
Another problem is the development of multimillion-dollar homes on the hillside at the north end of the reserve overlooking the wetlands, said Fish and Wildlife warden Nick Molsberry. While most residents respect the sensitive nature of the estuary, there are a few scofflaws, he said.
“It’s residents that sometimes feel entitled, that feel they should be able to use the land as they like,” Molsberry said. Authorities are ramping up enforcement and citing people who break the rules. “
It’s sad to see people taking ignorant actions that harm future generations from experiencing nature.
How is inconsiderate if the dogs themselves are behaving? Maybe there is something I'm missing, and I'd like to understand your point of view. I could understand you think it's inconsiderate if people don't have control on their dogs and they annoy others while the owners do nothing, then I agree with you. But just because of being off-leash? Not sure I understand that line of reasoning.
Edit: Just to clarify further, if I did meet someone who asks me to leash my dog I would obviously do so without hostility or violence. In my ~6 years of having dogs in Barcelona, that has yet to happen even once.
This is the problem right here. We have no idea whether your dogs are properly trained or not. There is no certification or regulation for having a dog off leash. We have no idea if they’re going to suddenly snap and, in the worst case scenario, viciously attack a baby, something they are biologically quite capable of.
It is probably different in collectivist societies where folks consider proper training a prerequisite to going off-leash, but where I’m from we have a scourge of ignorant owners who are not in control of their dogs. They ruin it for everybody.
I think the assumption is, at least from mine and others like me, is that if your dog is off-leash, you can handle your dog off-leash. The same if you bring friends to some social event, you wouldn't bring them if you can't handle them and they can behave in public. I'm not afraid they are gonna attack me, although sometimes humans do attack other humans, most of them are fine so no need to worry in general.
> but where I’m from we have a scourge of ignorant owners who are not in control of their dogs. They ruin it for everybody.
Yes, I agree, it's terrible when owners have no control over their dogs. But that's not relevant to the leash itself, that's relevant to the expertise of the owner. Dogs on leashes misbehave as well, and can easily (if wanted and the owner is a terrible one) unleash themselves by either raw power or the owner not paying attention.
No, this is not the same. You are legally responsible for the behavior of your dog.
If you let your dog off leash in a place where it is illegal to do so, congratulations: you've just lost the lawsuit.
If anything remotely funny happens -- regardless of what -- the liability can and will fall on the dog-owner for their reckless behavior. The real sad part of this is when the dog gets put down for the stupid owner...but my point is the people who let their dogs off leash have also posted a big, red sign saying "I'm responsible for anything happening here" -- even though few of them seem aware of that fact. Liability only becomes a question again if there is another dog-owner with their dog off leash.
Which may apply to 90% of off leash dogs. Unfortunately, the other 10% that have dogs that *cannot* be off leash, but do so anyway ruin it for you.
There are people that are afraid of dogs. They have no way of knowing, at a distance, whether your dogs will behave or run up to them. So when they see any dog off leash in a leash required area, they have to take a large detour to give the off leash dogs a wide enough berth.
If you’re in an area where leashes are required, and you have your dogs off leash (no matter how well trained they are) you are being extremely inconsiderate of the other people around you.
As a dog owner as well, I wish there were more acceptable off leash places in society for dogs, and I cherish the areas where off leash behavior is acceptable. But taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
Finally, in my personal experience the number of well trained off leash dogs (that can behave appropriately in a “leash required” setting), is nowhere near 90%. In fact, I would say the majority of off leash dogs I run across do not behave appropriately. It’s probably closer to 25% of the off leash dogs I run across that are trained well enough that they behave acceptably in on-leash settings
> Taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
This sums it up perfectly. Thank you!
Not sure why you say "well trained", the owners have obviously not trained the dog and has no business being off the leash, they are not well trained by any definition and you won't see dogs like that without a leash here in Barcelona.
> > Taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
> This sums it up perfectly. Thank you!
So... If there is no expectation of having your dog on the leash, then it's not rude and inconsiderate? Makes me feel a bit better at least, as the expectation here where I live seems to be very different than where you folks live.
Yea, I would agree with that. If there’s a legal expectation, or shared social expectation that an area requires a leash, then it’s rude and inconsiderate to have a dog off leash in that area.
If no such expectation exists, then off leash dogs are much more acceptable.
> the expectation here where I live seems to be very different than where you folks live.
There’s not a single expectation where I live, it varies by the place that you are. In certain areas of the city, dogs are required to be on a leash, while in the rest of they city they are not required.
In most parks in the city, dogs are required to be on a leash, but there are certain parks where dogs are allowed off leash.
My expectations of people’s behavior are largely driven by those laws, as that seems like the best way that we have to create shared expectations about different spaces.
He was using scare quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
This is my sister, exactly. At age four she was chased by an off-leash Alsatian and to this day is nervous of any off-leash large dog
Maybe, but I'd still feel safer if they were properly leashed and muzzled.
I walk a cat -on a leash- and dogs without a leash are a real problem to be on the lookout for at all times.
I’m from USA. On the same page with you here about the collectivist vs individual freedom. As you noted it’s a tragedy of the commons—-because unquestioned individual freedom is prized so heavily in USA, some dog owners take advantage of it without appropriate precaution, and those people tend to do things like call the police on black people, or scare and injure children by accident with their dogs, and these incidents correspondingly build our stereotype of off-leashers. Ironically this also leads to laws and rules and a general social attitude that restrict our individual freedom to walk dogs off leash.
In that way, Europeans are more ‘individually free’ on this topic because, as you note, off leash dog walking is totally normal over there because people wouldn’t think of doing it without appropriate control of their dog. Interesting to think about the tension and paradoxes between individual and collectivist freedoms.
But, you probably have some annoying dog tax ;)
The tax is from the local municipality, and I think it’s for upkeep of some dog infrastructure - dedicated dog parks, bins with little bags. It’s not much
This passage doesn't make sense. It's a word salad.
To start with, do you know what a tragedy of the commons is?
Second, why would "individual freedom being prized so heavily" entail "people tending to do things like call the police"? Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_collaborator and the like in authoritarian countries?
Third, what's the source for this bizarre claim that "those [dog owners] tend to do things like call the police on black people"?
Fourth, in what way is the latter at all relevant to the topic?
I live in Germany and I go to parks to freestyle with a soccer ball. My issue has always been dogs off lease interfering with my personal business. I have some balls with bite marks. I have been snubbed and sometimes gotten a rude response from owners.
I have lived in the USA also. My observation generally is that people find it weird when you say you don't like dogs/cats/etc -- almost like they are hearing it for the first time. This was a big difference from my home place.
I don't hate them, I just feel totally uncomfortable. Sometimes I feel my heart racing or I just totally freeze when I see a dog off lease nearby. (I would love to fix this: would appreciate any pointers).
That's an interesting sentence.
I’ve had a couple of friends who were afraid like you, where I would not bring my dog (a Vizsla - Quite energetic and very into people, so not a good idea to take him if I want those friends to feel comfortable). They started to come round to dogs generally after hanging out with friends that have smaller more docile breeds. Eventually they felt more comfortable and after shorter interactions with mine they got familiar with how the dog behaves, what motivates them, what they understand etc and slowly figure out that most are similar. So I’m not sure this is helpful, but that’s been my experience.
And they all say their dog is well behaved and doesn't do such things.
This is interesting to me because we have no such assurances about other humans either. But acting on the fear that a given human isn't adequately trained and restrained is labeled with every variant of ignorance.
- It's well dressed instead of naked
- It walks on two feet
- It speaks English
... And vice versa.
As far as I can say this adds to the discussion.
Someone literally said people who don’t have their dogs on leashes are prone to violent confrontations.
Then someone else retorted this is not the case for them and asked for elaboration to better understand their interlocutor’s point of view.
We should not be abusing downvote privilegies by discouraging viewpoints that we disagree with, when these viewpoints are relevant to the discussion. In the long run that will be harmful to ths community here and the next generation of hackers will go to different forums, or, worse, learn from our example.
Some people are afraid of dogs. Others come from cultures where dogs are considered ritually unclean. And no stranger can verify just by a glance that your dogs will behave themselves.
To take the third point to its logical extreme, imagine a town where police wear street clothes and openly carry firearms. You, a visitor, cannot determine by observation alone that they are all highly trained officers of the law. You simply see people with firearms. That could be unsettling, despite the fact that the presence of those people actually makes you safer.
I suppose that if everyone is walking their dogs without a leash, it's not really an issue because the culture has adapted to that practice.
Friend is an intelligent, gregarious, kind hearted tech worker. He’s also completely delusional and in denial about his dangerous, demonstrably violent pit bull.
Friend routinely takes dog off leash in places where that is not permitted.
This is the problem.
This could of course be solved by introducing stiff penalties for owners of unleashed dogs who bite -- how about a fixed 10,000 dollar fine?
If such a law were ever to be passed, something tells me a lot of people with "well behaved" dogs would suddenly start to leash their dogs "just in case".
Humans are very predictable in that fashion.
Your doing what you're doing stabilizes a culture where there can be no consequences for anyone in this domain, because there's no clear line of enforcement. What's a low-wage enforcement officer expected to do in this context you advocate, where people "mind their own dog's abilities" and only get fined when some clear violation occurs? Are they supposed to fine people only when they see dogs chasing birds, or scarring a fearful child, or jumping up on an elderly person, or any number of other things with unclear lines? No, you just outlaw dogs off-leash, and allow the $20/h enforcement officer to clearly execute their pro-social task. The anti-social behavior get fined.
So while it's setup like you say it is, in theory, what you think cannot happen is what happens in practice. Same with public drinking and other laws. The police usually look the other way unless you are abusing it somehow, being too drunk, loud or otherwise annoying. Sitting in the park with a bottle of wine is fine and won't end up with you getting a ticket, even though it's illegal. At worst they'll tell you to stop whatever you're doing, and if you follow their command, that's the end of the situation.
Maybe the big difference here between law officers in Spain (Barcelona at least) and wherever you're based, is how strict they actually enforce the laws. Here is maybe a bit laxer, which also fits in with the whole culture here, and it's represented in how law officers behave as well.
The dog was on the lead (or leash for you American English speakers) at the time of the attack though.
- Laws are virtually never there to regulate the median case. They're there to reduce the risk of harm. The reason we don't let people have automatic weapons isn't because most people would go on a killing spree if they had one, it's that a tiny minority would, and that would be disastrous.
- It's literally only been just yesterday that I watched someone's "well behaved" dog attack my friend's dog on a leash. He had to pull the (probably 3x larger) dog off of his. My brother had stitches on his face from being bitten as a kid by someone's "well behaved" dog. I have zero faith in dog owners' ability to self-regulate.
- I'm sure you have the one dog in the world that doesn't chase birds. Most dogs do. This is specifically about that case.
This really demonstrates your ignorance. Such dogs are not uncommon, particularly when well trained. My dog doesn't chase birds. She's a border collie that lives for frisbee and frisbee only. I taught her the herding maneuvers, but she does it lackadaisically and it's hard to get her to give eye to chickens. She's just not into it, but she'll humor me if I tell her to do it. Frisbee though... she is. And she can be at a dead sprint after a frisbee in flight and if I say "Stop" she'll stop on a dime. If the frisbee drifts off the field and into the street, she'll simply stop on the edge of the grass or sidewalk and wait for my ok to go get it without me saying anything.
And my dog really isn't special. Honestly, she has been a difficult to train dog from day one, but she has still been trained. Her mother though... man she's a true pleasure to work with.
I usually walk her off leash as well. When people ask me to put her on leash, I do, and I hold it with a loose pinky finger since it's kind of a joke because of how unneeded it is.
I must say that in this sort of situation - an area near a nesting site - I absolutely agree a dog shouldn't be free to run around. But I imagine there are signs specifically warning people against doing that. There are areas here where I have to do the same, for example near areas where people hunt deer (a lot nearby) or where there are bears (only seen warnings in Slovakia). But outside of those areas, with an conscientious owner and an attentive, trained dog who listens to their owner - there's no reason not to unless it's someone who hasn't bothered training their dog.
All the responses in this thread have been cordial and relevant, so it is disappointing to see some of them met with this kind of silent disapproval, which is reserved for non-sequitors, those acting in bad faith, or impolite speech.
In cities that have a lot of people from all over the country and world you end up with a lot of culture clashes. People do things that in the context they grew up in are totally reasonable and normal, but from someone else’s perspective seems uncomfortable or even dangerous.
In theory municipal rules should harmonize, albeit with some people left unhappy, but it’s another American cultural quirk that some rules are widely ignored. But which ones is again a matter of geographic diversity.
In my experience, most dog owners are like the user who started this thread. They do what they want, having their dog constantly off leash in areas where it's clearly not allowed, and then rationalize it to themselves with something like "well my dog's well behaved and would never hurt a fly!" It's incredibly inconsiderate to both the environment (dogs are constantly chasing and damaging wildlife, a lot of poop gets left behind as the owner is walking off in front and doesn't notice) and other people (many people don't like dogs, dogs are dangerous for bicyclists and small kids, and some people have smaller dogs who they don't want strange dogs interacting with), and indeed the badly behaved dog owner will see signs of this on a daily basis, but chooses to consciously ignore all of them by pretending none of it's happening.
Dog culture around the Bay Area where I am has reached peak absurd. With more dogs in SF now than kids, people treat their dogs like they would human children. Off leash dogs in on leash or even no dog areas is the norm. At least a few times a week I'll see an off leash dog to something bad to a person or another dog, and the owner pretend-chastise them with a, "ooohhhhh Fido, silly dog, don't do that" (but in a sweet tone so the dog is not actually being chastised) followed by a "he doesn't normally do that". You know of course that Fido does normally do that on a consistent basis, and the owner is pretending Fido doesn't because they really don't care.
It's frustrating to me, and probably frustrating to other people on here too. There's no real enforcement anywhere, so the only thing we can do is ask dog owners to put their animals back on leash, which will be ignored. It's like fighting entropy at this point, and if you're anything like me, you sort of wish nebulously that people would just be better.
Yes, if I was in the USA maybe I would be in the minority. But where I actually live (Barcelona, Spain) I'm not, as mentioned before. Countless people walk their dogs without leashes here, and no one bats an eye.
> too many dog owners think their dogs are fine and when their dog runs dozens of yards away from their master to bound up to us th egg cheerfully call out, “It’s a friendly dog!”
Sure that might be a friendly dog but in no way is that a well-behaved dog, it wouldn't run away yards away unless the owner explicitly calls out for them to behave that way. Living in ~16th or something biggest city in Europe, you wouldn't have your dog stray that far away from you, easily within a yard of yourself at all time, otherwise I wouldn't call them well-behaved.
So back to the original point: off-leash dogs that don't behave properly have inconsiderate owners, yes I agree with this. Are all owners who let their dogs be off-leash inconsiderate? No.
That's great, as it should be. However, the majority of dog owners I encounter are at the mercy of their dogs, they treat the dogs not as dogs but as humans and try to bargain with them. This is merely annoying when the dogs is a golden lab, but can be mortal when it is a "sweet" "rescue" pit.
You are right though, it doesn't matter if the dog is on a leash because people also get these 30ft (10m) leashes and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, someone's dog is trying to "just show affection" to a toddler.
So, the golden rule is not to get a dog if you can't be pack leader. A very bad proxy for a person being able to control a dog is the dog being on a "short leash"[1]. So, people go for that rule.
Then you get the 100 lb jogger (45 kg) who attaches a Doberman with a breakaway clip to their shorts.
The crux of the problem.
If this is true then you should have no problem putting a leash on them where it's required. By your own admission it wouldn't affect your activity.
~ I've been bitten in the hand drawing blood by two different dogs (not mine). ~ My daughter had a large dog nipping her face while the owner laughed. ~ I have too different acquaintances that were mauled on their face pretty badly.
All these dogs had owners nearby.
I love dogs and have had one or more the majority of my life, but people are irresponsible and arrogant.
> people are irresponsible and arrogant
Agree! And it does harm that people are behaving that way, but that doesn't give me reason to limit people who are not irresponsible and arrogant. Yes, some things are dangerous to consume for example, and irresponsible people can make it worse for everyone by consuming those things, but I don't think we should outlaw those things just because of that.
Leash your dog. To do otherwise is selfish and rude.
The comment I responded to called me "extremely inconsiderate", "hostile" and "violent" while I'm neither of those things (well, "inconsiderate" when it comes to how I handle my dogs seems to be up for debate at least). Are those the stereotypes you mean are visible in my comment?
> Leash your dog. To do otherwise is selfish and rude.
Thank you for sharing your opinion but it does not help me understand WHY, which I why I made my initial comment in the first place. You have something to contribute, contribute. But re-iterating exactly the same piece of information as what I replied to without any sort of addition or effort does not help anyone in this discussion. If you want to explain why you feel that way, please do.
Well... I mean yeah, that's why I asked for more information in order to understand the other persons perspective, what do you think this discussion is about? In case you missed it, here is the part I explicitly call out that I don't understand their perspective but I would like to, so please educate me:
> How is inconsiderate if the dogs themselves are behaving? Maybe there is something I'm missing, and I'd like to understand your point of view. I could understand you think it's inconsiderate if people don't have control on their dogs and they annoy others while the owners do nothing, then I agree with you. But just because of being off-leash? Not sure I understand that line of reasoning.
If you have something to contribute that can further my understanding, I'd be most appreciative.
> other people have no oracular powers with which to discern whether you or your dog are well-behaved.
Yeah, this is true but applies in so many things in life. New friend introduced by my other friend? Not sure they are well-behaved or not, but I'll default to that they won't murder me, but if they give signs that they might want to kill me, I'd stay away or contact authorities. I think in general society is adjusting well to the possibility of judging things as they come along, instead of painting broad strokes like "people with dogs off-leash are extremely inconsiderate", at least where I live, not sure how things look where you live.
there's a great hike just outside Salt Lake City that solves this problem by allowing bikes on even numbered days and off-leash dogs on odd numbered days
"How is it inconsiderate if I carry a gun in public? I've never shot or threatened anyone! If I met someone who asked me to put my gun away, I would obviously do so." :)
Societies work because we agree to give up a measure of our personal freedoms, even when it's sometimes a bit inconvenient for us.
Seemingly the police here are of the view that most dogs don't pose a threat to others and are not annoying when off leash, as I haven't been confronted when walking next to them with my leashed dog.
Carrying a gun would obviously not be OK here as it's strictly outlawed. If I went to the US, I would probably feel the same way that some feel against dogs here but regarding guns, so that's actually a good point, thank you.
So when I encounter them I have to assume you are not a reponsible dog owner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_in...
And then he pulled dog treats out of his pocket(he doesn't have a dog, he carries them for confrontations with dog owners he gets into) and attempted to lure the dog away from her.
I think, if the races were reversed, the off-leash person would have been seen as the victim, and the dude would have been told "You aren't the park police - mind your own business".
However, because she called the police and said a black man was accosting her, twitter/cnn took that to mean she was trying to get the police to show up to kill this dude, which is a crazy idea to me, considering the NYPD has hundreds of thousands of interactions with black people every year and almost all of them end in the person not being killed.
She also described him as a man, and as "with a bike helmet" multiple times, which leads me to believe she was just "describing the perp" like they do in crime shows when people call the emergency services, and not saying "Hey 911, come kill this black man!"
And then she called the police...
She also said "a man with a bike helmet"...do you think she is especially afraid of bikers? Isn't the most reasonable reading that she is describing the man, and not scheming that she can get the cops to come out and kill this stranger who is annoying her?
About 5 years ago after trying all sorts of signage they banned dogs altogether.
I feel bad for the small minority of dog owners who complied and kept their dogs on-leash
Dogs need (outdoor) space. As a dog owner you carry that responsibility.
Having a garden to (mostly) take care of this seems obvious. If not, when using public space instead, it seems strange to expect others (wildlife, kids,...) to take this for granted?
I remember one dog in particular, which was unleashed and running with its owner, who was on a bike. It would run ahead, staying on the correct part of the sidewalk, until it reached a crosswalk or corner, then stop and calmly wait for its owner to catch up and give permission to cross. I think one time (of the 3 crosswalks it was in view for) it got impatient and went back to its owner instead of waiting in place.
As a result, dogs are commonly (though not always) allowed in restaurants -- they stay quietly under the table -- and some other venues, which would be unthinkable in the US.
There's not too much of a point to this comment, just sharing perspective. I guess if anything it's that I wouldn't be so categorical about "if X, then Y, period".
Someone’s dog gets bitten every week or so and it’s a huge outrage.
Periodically a little dog goes into the big dog area and gets torn to shreds.
Now I have used same locations many times without issues. But it happens.
My response was there are two options, your dog either needs to be destroyed or never off leash again and we didn't discuss further. Then we stopped somewhere to take a break and she let her dogs run out of the car off leash. When my jaw dropped, she replied, "it's no problem, I don't see anyone around".
So it's worse than getting "hostile" or "violent" as you mentioned. Many of these people never learn. You could sue them into oblivion and the take away would be they are the victim of an unjust world.
Once police get involved she will get fined and there is a risk that dogs get euthanised in some countries after biting someone...
There is also a risk of someone hurting her dogs due to adrenaline...
Through sadly this can even apply in situations where it was reasonable for the Dog to bite (e.g. in self defense or to defense their holder).
and here lies the main issue - the dog gets punished for what is mainly the owner's fault (it is somewhat similar to destroying the gun in case of killing while letting the killer go free). I'm generally against corporal punishment, and this is one of the few exceptions where i think corporal punishment would be very useful - any damage inflicted by your dog as a result of your gross negligence should be inflicted as a punishment on you.
It's not just a risk for you but can also make the dogs involved more aggressive.
Furthermore most dogs (which do not have mental issues or are badly wrongly trained) normally won't kill or majorly injure the other dog but mainly make it submit. But if you step in thinks can still escalate.
Lastly the problem are not dogs of the leach, but people not training their dogs properly (and often not understanding/ignoring that they don't train their dog properly). Or people buying dogs which are bread (and potentially even trained) to be super aggressive. Which IMHO is a no-go and requires the dog to muzzled nearly always outside of private properties (through ONLY for this dogs bread to be aggressive, e.g. for dog fighting).
I have been in areas where dogs are allowed to be of the leach frequently and is generally not a problem, most dog holders living around where I live do not use a leach when walking their dogs in the evening and it's not a problem.
EDIT: Wrt. the main thread, if you dog is properly trained you can have it walk alongside you without a leach even with birds close by and it won't run to the birds. A lot of dogs I meat are good but not hat good trained so while there really is no reason to put them on the leach in the city or common German forest areas you would put them on the leach if you enter a area with e.g. ground breading birds.
>normally won't kill or majorly injure the other dog but mainly make it submit
some are doing it by biting and sinking their teeth deep into the back of the neck of the victim. So it does make sense to step in before that happens, as well as to step in to stop that when that is already going on (i've met owners who had that happen to their dogs, and couple times i stepped in right before that was going to happen to my dog)
(Which I am not!)
---
>that happen to their dogs
It's a pretty normal part of dogs inter-social behaviour, as you should now the back of the neck of dogs is used by parent dogs to discipline (and sometimes carry) their pubs. In turn it's also used to make dogs submit in social fights between them. Which is a normal/natural part of there social interaction.
And yes there are aggressive and dangers dogs, too.
Still if you step in you are likely increasing the aggression the other dog has against your dog. Which if it repeatedly happens with the same dogs could make the situation problematic if you at some point are not fast enough to step in.
i understand that you describe a consistent and logical model. Unfortunately it has nothing in common with the reality i know. In one case it was a large labrador - a lot of muscle on hit back neck - so he got an inch deep wounds, a lot of stitches and drainage for a week, in another case it was Chihuahua - not much tissue - so he ended up with a series of surgeries on the bones and cartilage in his shoulders.
Or, they're the type who thinks everyone loves dogs and that you know their dog is just the sweetest thing ever.
I live in Austin (which is ground zero for irresponsible dog owners) and I can't count the number of times some huge unleashed dog runs up on me out of nowhere, followed by their owner shouting "oh, he's really friendly!"
Ive been to Austin. Its nice. In sure you have some very annoying dog owners.
I grew up in BsAs. The city is a sidewalk of dog shit you have to avoid stepping on.
> My father told me a story of a man walking in a park one day when an unleashed dog walked up to him. The man took out his handgun and shot it.
Not a threatening dog, just a fucking dog walking up to somebody. This is a disgusting line of thought that anyone would take a life purely based on an animal approaching you.
It makes me question my involvement in a community where people are so unhinged they think taking out a gun and shooting someone's random dog is appropriate. How far we've come from To Kill a Mockingbird is astounding.
I think I am done with this place. What a disappointing thread.
An unleashed dog comes up to you where its not supposed to.
- What are its intentions?
- Is it aggressive?
- Is it rabid?
Its no different than if a coyote came up and accosted you. Worse, because dogs are socialized not to fear man.
My neighbor had an aggressive dog (german shepherd) and every time my kid was outside in the backyard I made sure to carry a weapon to kill it if need be. It didn't really matter, my kid was too scared of it to play in the backyard.
I was planning on calling the city to have it destroyed but she moved out.
And for all you down voters... yes I talked to her. It was obvious talking with her where the dog got its attitude from.
Dogs have tells too, and there's common ones that most dog owners will know:
- ears backed with tail tucked or quick wagging
- cowering / laying down (in a non-relaxed posture)
- deep growls and a leg spread defensive stance
And there's tells that occur far before the above. Dogs are domesticated animals (with millions of years of domestication, as opposed to cats), so comparing them in your head to a coyote is a false dichotomy from the get-go.
Your situation and GPs are very different. GP has specifically framed a dog that walked up to them off-leash. You are talking about having to potentially defend a child's life. There's a massive chasm between the two both legally and ethically.
Defending yourself and being a violent person are two different things. The man who shoots any off-leash or stray dog is just violent.
Which is precisely why they must be on a leash, always. Except in a fenced off area maybe.
Im annoyed at the leash-less dogs in parks where dogs aren't even allowed. Although they're the least of my problems, a neighbor has a couple of pet pigs.
I've already acknowledged there's nuance to the idea of being able to shoot a dog, much like there is to shooting a human. You were so desperate to argue your silly little point about defense that you forgot you, and some of the other folks here, are defending someone who shot a dog for no reason.
That's who you defended and voted for. That's what I was upset about.
“Leash your fucking dog” is my go-to. “Are you selfish or stupid?” works, too.
But the onus is not on me to meet your pet half way, learn the species’ “tells” or pretend that there are no irresponsible owners.
The onus is on you.
But if it yelps, barks, gets territorial, bares his teeth, etc, the sociopath (ie unable to behave properly in society) is the dog owner who cant keep the dog on a leech.
Which is it, an animal or a life? The phrase "take a life" implies some sort of value akin to that of a human life. If you want to elevate animals to that level, then acknowledge that you take a life when you slap a mosquito or step on an ant, yet I doubt you apply the same moralizing to anyone else who does so.
> It makes me question my involvement in a community where people are so unhinged they think taking out a gun and shooting someone's random dog is appropriate.
I think the key thing is that an off leash dog ceases to become "someone's random dog". It being "someone's dog" gives it value by being recognized as another person's property. Once off leash, relative to other people it's just a dog now; the owner has effectively abdicated responsibility of ownership for the dog by letting it off the leash. At that point it's not "someone's dog" any more than a bird with a FWS band is "someone's bird". Consequently treating it like any other animals is acceptable.
I say all of this as someone who loves dogs, and I even enjoy friendly dogs approaching me. But they 100% should be on leash and unable to approach me. I wouldn't blame someone for shooting a dog in the exact same circumstances.
Do you think it's okay to walk around and shoot strays? At least dog pounds in the US will make an attempt at a nonviolent death for a stray animal.
Let me be clear, it's not moralizing when it's ethically unsound to shoot a dog that does nothing else than walk up to you. When I chose "life" it's probably because I live with my dog. She has a personality, she has quirks, she learns from me and even teaches me things. If I saw her brains get blown out by some random dude because she walked up (and that was the framing) what am I in bounds to do? I can tell you, what I'm allowed to do would be of little consequence to me, because although that is just a dog to you, to me you took an animal that I know on a level deeper than I know most humans.
> At that point it's not "someone's dog" any more than a bird with a FWS band is "someone's bird". Consequently treating it like any other animals is acceptable.
Birds are not domesticated and we certainly treat domesticated animals differently in the context of the law and societal expectations. Dogs being the most and longest domesticated animal, whose behavior has been shaped and maintained over millions of years.
Only K-9 have that right, and thats ridiculous
The owner looked furious but caught me staring him in the eye in time to recompose himself and get off of our front yard.
The bloody nerve. You have your dog take its daily piss on our wall - a wall that my grandma cleans, btw. The dog takes its daily piss and my grandpa decides to ignore it, but then you don’t stop the thing from nipping him?
Oh well the dog pissed blood for a week after that
That being said, my grandpa ignored the pissing. The kidney blow was in response to the nip. And the dog got lucky: the old man spent his life building roads in guerrilla infected mountains.
I have had non-dog owners speak pretty nastily to me, whether it's about my dog doing something natural (like defecating, which I carry bags for) or not realizing that areas are off-leash. I typically find the latter when I go camping (though there are certainly trails and campgrounds that are non-off leash this usually isn't about the dog itself, but the presence of predatory or endangered wildlife).
As a responsible dog owner, I check the beaches I'm going to, I check the parks (including trails and campgrounds) I go to, my dog is harnessed rather than collared, and my dog is properly socialized for both humans and animals (cats too!)
I don't know why California is so lax about this. Other states I've lived in actually enforced dog laws.
PSA: Please keep your dog away from cyclists.
A friend suffered a bicycle crash and killed a dog like that. I can see from my place all the time the same situation waiting to happen, with women busy chatting on one side, and not caring at all about where the dog goes. When I had to walk the dog of a former girlfriend on a road/street side, I always took the short, fixed leash, and in places where room was scarce, I even kept my second hand further on the leash to be able to shorten it quickly if needed.
Just a couple of days ago, a bit different situations. I was cycling uphill on a small road, and there was a woman (it's almost always a woman, in fact) with a dog at her feet on the right of the road. I prepared to move a bit to the left to give them space while taking over. But the dog started coming to me (not aggressively), and the woman let the leash unroll, and unroll, and unroll. She never stopped it, but started yelling: not at the dog to call it back (which has a dubious success rate in general but shows a little bit of conscience at least), but at me! She was telling me to slow down, that I was crazy and dangerous. I said it was uphill, and I suck at climbing, so I was cycling at the ridiculous speed of 5 mph (yes, five)... And I was now on the opposite side of the road. It's a very bad idea to yell at me, it makes me completely snap, so the result was not what she expected.
Coming back to off-leash, I was bitten in the calf while riding last year by two dogs (so far dogs had only gone for my trousers, but this time they went through the trouser, through the sock, and through the skin). The owner was standing 10 yards away, he didn't do or say anything. He didn't give a damn. In the little "discussion" had with the cretin, he kept claiming his dogs do not bite... while they were biting and pulling my trouser again... At no point he tried to regain control of his dogs. As it should be done, I reported it to the Mayor, who MUST take measures: here, there is no immediate death penalty for such behaviour, but the Mayor MUST make sure the dog should first be sent to a vet for behavioural examination. She didn't do anything.
At my place, there are plenty of dogs loose all day long. The (French) law is lax, but even the few restrictions are never enforced. They shit and dig holes in people's open gardens, they occasionally attack and sometimes kill other people's pets (dogs and cats). Then you have shepherds dogs, who attack cyclists and occasionally pedestrians, even on public roads (and it's not a matter of protection, these bastards generally attack people in the back, after they have passed by); often farmers' dogs haven't been trained at all, or in the case of livestock farmers only trained to one purpose and the relation with humans was not part of it. When I was living in another country, dogs were never loose: either in a fenced yard, or on a leash ; whether they were pet dogs, shepherds dogs, sledge dogs or whatever type of dog and dog owner you may imagine. But over here people will tell you this is impossible. Gee...
There are plenty of dogs these days. Cats are even worse, it is a proliferation (their number was multiplied by 2 or 3 in a few decades, IIRC), and due to their nature, they are even less kept under control. Luckily, they are also less a danger to humans, but they are worse about gardens, because contrarily to dogs, they ignore fences :-)
It's like everyone wants to own a pet for the fun side, but the negative externalities are for others to undergo. Of course I don't do justice to the owners who care and pay attention, they do exist :-) but of course the others are more noticeable.
Clear-cutting, overfishing, fossil fuel extraction, emissions, etc didn't just happen on their own -- they all required a human decision.
Whether or not humans making these decisions realize that their actions will contribute to the irreparable harm of the environment is a moot point. The decisions are made and the harm is done. Even so, willful ignorance and indifference to the impact of ones actions are decisions too.
If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
I point out that your generation is also destroying the planet.
You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.
However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!
Why not instead of hating humanity and spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections, look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?
No, not quite. You stated "no one decided [to harm the environment]". My reply sought to explain how that is incorrect.
> You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.
Again, not quite. "We are all sinners" is very different from 'humans have made decisions to harm the environment for a long time'. Those two are different.
> However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!
Wow, where to begin...
> you don’t even have any salvation to offer.
I'm advocating a very simple proposition: preserving the environment. Whether you want to liken it to "salvation" is entirely up to you.
> We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail.
What an awful assertion. I'd hardly agree that environmental protection and preservation is a lost cause.
> Why not instead of hating humanity
Again, false. I do not "hate" humanity.
> spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections,
I could be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that because something is difficult and that the result might not be unachievable, that it's therefore not worth trying. Again, I completely disagree.
> look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?
Absolutely! There are an innumerable number of ways that we can protect and preserve the environment. In this thread, I'm contributing in a tiny way by dispelling the notion that "no one decided [to harm the environment]". As I stated above: If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
On the contrary preaching at people to change their sinful ways will never work. In fact, it’s likely to be counterproductive. But self righteous sure does feel good.
If you really want to save the environment, and not just feel like a good person, invent ways to break the zero sum trade off curve between the environment and human flourishing in the short and medium term.
Invention is sometimes a lonely and quiet endeavor, conversation is much the antithesis.
We now have the tools humans have been dreaming of for millennia to make the world a better place. I personally think instead of looking backwards and blaming people for making mistakes, we should use the tools to look forward to accomplish the goals of the future; Human health, environmental health, agricultural sustainability, peace.
Without affordable housing you might delay having children and getting married like I did. Wait too long and you might never be able to see your children or grandchildren because you won't have them.
Reframing it that way might reduce resentment and ameliorate this perpetual blame of the previous generations. You'll have to pick your poison just like previous generations did only to later be criticized regardless of which poison you chose.
It'll cause some immediate societal issues like an unbalanced population pyramid just like the boomers did. But it'll be better in the long run.
[0]: https://news.yahoo.com/average-cost-college-jumped-incredibl...
[1]: https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house...
But that doesn't mean the previous generation got a better deal. When my Dad bought our first home the interest rate was over 10%. And how did he pay for college ? He had to fight in a war and then work at the military morgue. He never recovered from this.
I am not trying to win an argument here. It's human nature to focus one's own problems and assume others have it better. For the record, my dad would definitely preferred to have been born into your generation, as I would. Again that's not a counterargument but should at least help lessen some of the bitterness from these discussions.
And then you go on the internet and read how the post WW2 generation fucked everyone over - like....in US, sure. In the former Soviet block? Not so much.
Generally speaking, affordable housing advocates incidentally advocate for more efficient land use, because that’s one part of the strategy to build cheap places for people to live.
For example the USA could end its refugee intake program (which Biden has increased by 50,000/year to 62,500) - which alone will bring in a Wyoming's worth of people over the next 9 years.
Secondly to limit immigration only to other highly developed countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev... And to persecute and physically prevent all unauthorised arrivals.
Learned a new word today! One who scoffs at laws can be called, quite appropriately, a "scofflaw".
Why do dogs get away with behaviour that would be blatantly offensive if done by a person?
Not that it ever can be enforced, unless you happen to have your doggy do its business on the bylaw officer's front lawn, but it's a bylaw nonetheless.
They are not extinct because they live from Chile to US, so they have more than one nest area. Tern are serious migratory birds.
> I wouldn't discard a deliberated action it somebody wants to develop the area.
If we gradually lose all of the migration endpoints the species will eventually suffer.
Indeed. We may see the extinction of the monarch butterfly within the decade for this very reason.
I work at the Hawk Conservation Trust in the UK. We have a few White-headed vultures and this year two of them have successfully raised a chick (currently two months old and about to start flapping its little wings). A visitor asked me if it would be returned to the wild. I said 'no - it is part of the insurance policy for this species' and the conversation moved on.
What I didn't say was that returning it to the wild would be like throwing it into a shredder. These African birds are superbly good at spotting carrion. When poachers kill elephants and rhinos, the vultures start circling and unwittingly act as a signal to the wildlife rangers that poachers might be in the vicinity. So, after they have chain-sawed the horns / tusks off, the poachers poison the carcasses to kill the vultures so they won't give the game away at the next kill. The record is 500 vultures of various species killed as a result of one poaching event. The wild populations will not survive this relentless slaughter.
So, I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for people who are worried about their drone-flying rights. Sorry.
Originally it was 1,500 eggs, then 2,000 then 3,000.
The photo looks under 1000 - https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/heraldextra.com...
800 eggs abandoned is still a story, but if they told the truth of what they know, perhaps the real cause might be easier to see. I'd guess to was 3,000 birds original now it's 3000 eggs.
The Gizmodo photo was take in the Bahrain - [1] -https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/06/frightened-terns-abandon-... [2] https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=Fasht+a...
On the other hand, given their alleged response to disturbances, how aren't these birds extinct yet?
This makes me somewhat skeptical of this story.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/elegant-tern-eggs-dron...
I'm guessing it either fell after colliding with a bird or was flying low enough with sensors off and clipped the ground.
Which of those two would the birds have a genetically and socially built-in way to cope and survive through?