Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's quite clear what most of the discussion here is about. A dog has died, suddenly and quite horribly, very possibly (but not certainly) after exposure to something toxic in Peckham Rye. This may have been misplaced rat poison (in which case the council needs to investigate pronto) or - possibly - a toxic fungus - in which case such investigation is also important. It is also possible (but not probable) that the death was caused by an infection - only a proper set of lab tests can determine what actually caused the death, and therefore what follow-up/ remedies need to be applied to avoid any occurrence.


I think we can all agree that actions to avoid another dog suffering in this way would be good, but until the actual cause can be established it is difficult to know what these actions would optimally be (nor what other dog owners should be looking out for). Posters have simply been suggesting that jumping to any conclusion - however 'probable' that might be without evidence - may mean that something important is being missed.


I would certainly say that keeping dogs close to you, and intervening if they seem to want to be eating something in the park would be a good idea. But what exactly to watch out for is at the moment moot.


I would not wish the horror and tragedy that has hit the first owner should be visited on another.

I posted something on here back in August about my dog in relation to Peckham Rye park. She collapsed, had a very bad seizure and very nearly died. Thankfully various brilliant vets got her back on her feet. Their view was she had ingested some sort of toxin, Although they were unable to say what.


I've thought long and hard about where she might have been poisoned. About one hour prior to her collapse she had been drinking the water from the stream under the small bridge in Peckham Rye, near where this incident took place. she was sniffing around the fallen tree too, looking for dropped food. I can't be certain that's where she ingested whatever it was that poisoned her. But this incident has made me think again. Fungi and mold can certainly poison dogs. It's called Mycotoxicosis.


I think the parks people should have a look at this.

My sincere condolences to the owners of this dog.


As a rule it is unwise to let dogs drink from streams, ponds or puddles. I'd even go so far as saying don't let your dog splash around in park water, they can still ingest water while playing or afterwards when they lick their fur. Still water in particular carries a range of potentially dangerous micro-organisms.

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I posted something on here back in August about my

> dog in relation to Peckham Rye park. She

> collapsed, had a very bad seizure and very nearly

> died. Thankfully various brilliant vets got her

> back on her feet. Their view was she had ingested

> some sort of toxin, Although they were unable to

> say what.

>

> I've thought long and hard about where she might

> have been poisoned. About one hour prior to her

> collapse she had been drinking the water from the

> stream under the small bridge in Peckham Rye, near

> where this incident took place. she was sniffing

> around the fallen tree too, looking for dropped

> food. I can't be certain that's where she ingested

> whatever it was that poisoned her. But this

> incident has made me think again. Fungi and mold

> can certainly poison dogs. It's called

> Mycotoxicosis.

>

> I think the parks people should have a look at

> this.



Thanks for that, I remember your original post and wondered what the outcome was. I am so glad he/she survived.☺

Hi B777,

I'm really, really sorry to hear about the death of your friend's dog. If/when your friend is able to )and if they have additional information from the vet please could they pm me (or you on their behalf). If it was rat poison than the police and park staff need to know and if it was some natural poison eg from a fungus than the parks staff need to know (to have it removed from the fallen tree or cordon it off to prevent this happening again to another dog). I am glad to hear, Taper that your dog has recovered from what may have been a similar incident.

Renata

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks. She was very ill. And it cost me (or

> rather Petplan) ?5k to get here right.

>

> The water she drank from was the fast flowing

> stream under the bridge and not still water.

> Wouldn't necessarily have been that that poisoned

> her.



As a matter of interest which vet did you use?

Gosh sorry to hear this, concern also for other dogs, wildlife and humans including kids who could potentially be exposed to this. I would have thought any poison put down by park authorities targetting vermin would have been properly signposted or cordoned off.

I am also concerned that the suspected site of the poisoning is so close to the children's playground. Does anyone know whether the park staff will be investigating?


I say this as a parent of a 23-year old who used to play there frequently. And the owner of two dogs who walk near there every day.

So sorry to hear about the dog, and glad the first one has recovered.


It is the season for fungi at the moment, isn't it?


This may be a stupid question, but has anybody actually looked at the tree to see if there are signs of rat poison or fungi around it in a place which could be accessible to dogs?


Also, given that at least two dogs have sadly been poisoned in the same general area, it would seem sensible for lab tests to be carried out to clearly identify the poison, or other cause as suggested by Saffron, if possible.


That would be a first step towards eliminating the cause and preventing any more dogs (and owners) suffering in this way.


It could also flag up whether there is a possibility that poison was deliberately placed, and if so what action the police might take.

Hi Sue


Not a stupid question. A real probablity..


Mushroom poisoning occurs as a result of ingesting toxic mushrooms, which is a common hazard for dogs because of the amount of time they spend outdoors or in wooded areas, particularly in the summer and fall.



http://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/digestive/c_dg_mushroom_poisoning


Foxy

In addition to ingestion toxicity, fungal infections can also occur. These are similar to bacterial infections, and the pathogenic agents are microscopic. These infections are often tricky to diagnose and treat.


It's normally very difficult to retrospectively identify toxins or infections unless sample material remains available. It might be more useful to get a survey of how many dogs (or cats) locally exhibit trace amounts of rodentacide. This could be done by teaming up with a local vet(s) to apply for some grant funding. It would be a really good topic for anyone doing a PhD in toxicology or for a veterinary student.

But in the meantime...two dogs have fallen seriously ill, one fatally, (anecdotally) closely following incidents in Peckham Rye where the dogs were assumed to have ingested something. A reasonable prima facie assumption is that the dogs were effected by something in the park - whether that was a rodenticide or something else (fungus?) toxic is unclear. At the least the area where the most recent incident possibly occurred should be examined, presumably by park gardening staff who may be able to identify possible culprits (misplaced rat poison or toxic mushrooms) should they be present as a matter of urgency. If nothing is found that doesn't necessarily rule out the incident(s) being park related, but at least it has been checked.

The purpose of my original post was to highlight to dog owners and users of PRP of a potential problem with poison in the park. Successfully done as over 2800 views.

It was not to start a discussion for pedants arguing about the poison. It was unlikely to be rat poison the parks put down as they are aiming to poison an animal weighing 300g not an animal weighing 40 times that. The dog had never eaten mushrooms before or bark from trees......I think it safe to assume it didn't start that day.

B777 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The purpose of my original post was to highlight

> to dog owners and users of PRP of a potential

> problem with poison in the park. Successfully done

> as over 2800 views.

> It was not to start a discussion for pedants

> arguing about the poison. It was unlikely to be

> rat poison the parks put down as they are aiming

> to poison an animal weighing 300g not an animal

> weighing 40 times that. The dog had never eaten

> mushrooms before or bark from trees......I think

> it safe to assume it didn't start that day.


And well done for doing so, but I don't think it's that objectionable for people to discuss what the cause might be - I've actually learned a couple of useful bits of information from this thread which I've passed on to my dog owning mother - it's a discussion board!

I was informed today from the park warden the dog who took ill was by the mulberry tree not the children's playground and also that of late they haven't been using any poison for rats in the park so must have been caused by either fungi or even could have been something digested before coming into the park ?!

Or something been dumped there carelessly or on purpose. Or perhaps flowed down the stream from upstream.


Do you remember the start to this very odd thread?


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1546811,1709334#msg-1709334


I'd like to know whether it was a wind up or based on something.


Where's the mulberry bush?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...