Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Big shout out to white male, 40s, short thinning mousey hair and beard, blue jumper, dog lead around your neck, in Dulwich Woods with two small dark-haired boys, presumably your sons, and a white and tan bulldog this lunchtime. You stood smiling and watching as your dog defecated beside the path next to the old railway bridge and then walked on without doing anything about it. Guess you don't care about anyone else's kids stepping or falling on it as long as yours don't.


Yes, I know it's passive-aggressive, he probably doesn't use the forum, blah blah, but he looked classic EDF to me and if he doesn't read this I bet someone who knows him will.


Drives me nuts. If you're not going to pick up after your dog, it's a sign you're not ready to have one.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/174481-pick-up-after-your-dog/
Share on other sites

I think it's time dogs were banned in London now. There is / are dog owner(s) that let their beasts crap outside the school on Adys Rd and leave their filth behind for the children to wade through on their way thought the gates.


It's an appallingly selfish way to carry on

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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


> Keeping pets generally is very bad for the

> environment.On average a dog has the same annual

> carbon foot print as a car. And the amount of

> waste produced to keep them is enormous.


There is no reliable scientific study which supports that claim. A recent study in the US concluded that 163M cats and dogs in that country have the same environmental impact as 13.6M cars, i.e. less than a tenth of a car per pet. This can be further mitigated by feeding dogs a principally cereal based diet.


Odd that you, Abe, a noted defender of the motor car, want to ban dogs from London because of their effect on the environment but shriek with indignation any time banning motor cars, even from one street, is suggested. People not picking up after their dogs is disgusting and I'd gladly have them banned from keeping dogs, but I don't believe that 10,000 premature deaths in London each year are contributed to by dogs.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Cats have a very much smaller carbon footprint

> though rendel!


Oddly, not so much - I love them both but my family have always fed our dogs on a mainly cereal based diet with a drop of catfood in it, and they've always been massively healthy and long lived (plus it saves a fortune, we've always had big dogs) and fart a lot less - whereas with our cats it's virtually impossible to feed them on anything but meat and fish. Different digestive systems.


Anyway, it pales into insignificance compared to the emissions from animals used for human meat and dairy, pets really are a drop in the ocean in this context.

Link please.


Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I heard yesterday on TV there are 8 million dogs

> in the UK.

>

> Keeping pets generally is very bad for the

> environment.On average a dog has the same annual

> carbon foot print as a car. And the amount of

> waste produced to keep them is enormous.

No comment on the carbon footprint of a dog..but the faeces footprint all over our streets is clear to see.


Also....yesterday got home and front gate and bottom of path were drenched in a yellow, deep puddle of dog piss. Now I know know that you can't pick up dog piss, but letting him do it in the middle of someone's front path?

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

    • was the price not displayed on the menu?
    • It has come to this author’s attention that the world of 4+ admissions — that most enigmatic of educational rites — continues to bewilder even the most composed of parents. Fear not. For in a former life, I was not merely a humble observer, but a seasoned educator of over twenty years, and Head of Pre-Prep for a distinguished dozen. Now, with quill exchanged for touchscreen, I have taken to that most modern of salons — Instagram — to dispense guidance, answer frequently whispered questions, and illuminate the shadowy corners of school selection with clarity and calm. Each post bears my signature twist: a blend of insight, levity, and the occasional raised eyebrow. Should you find yourself adrift in the sea of admissions, I suggest you peruse my latest dispatch. It may well be the lifeline you seek. The Delicate Dilemma of the Summer-born 4+ Scholars Yours in solidarity and scholastic savvy, Lord Pencilton  🎩✏️
    • Perhaps Gooseygreeny was not familiar with the wildlife before Gala was imposed on the park, since when its value to wildlife has deteriorated. The Park had never been disturbed before, as the council had respected it as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, so only the Common was licensed by them as a site for events. The first time Gala held their event, there was a tree with woodpeckers nesting in it right in the middle of the main field they used and thrushes, blackbirds and great tits nesting within the shrubs and trees immediately surrounding the field. The woodpeckers were thriving on ants from the anthills in the grass. To those of us who used to enjoy watching the wildlife, it was very obviously a Site of Importance for a variety of birds. Despite being accessed by the public and their dogs, it had been relatively undisturbed,  which was one of the main reasons why it was so special and why I have been opposed to the Gala festival being held during the bird nesting season.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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