Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree. Every time I'm in the park, the female is sitting on the fence staring into the trees as though waiting for her mate to return. Egyptian geese mate for life, and it is well documented that geese who lose a mate mourn for a long time, if not forever, and often stop eating. Unfortunately these birds have very recently been put on the list of 'invasive species', and yes 'they are only birds', but would it really be so hard to either return the male to the park, or relocate the female to the sanctuary where her mate is when the young geese are old enough?

They really need to be reunited it's unfair to separate them as they do mate for life.

The whole idea was to rescue rehabilitate and return, having a gait issue surley should not prevent his return are we sure there's not another reason.

hpsaucey wrote:

> I hope whoever was responsible reads this thread and fully realises what they've done!


hellosailor Wrote:

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

> I think the chances that the dog reads the forum

> are slim.


The owner reads ... not the dog. Who'd hold the dog responsible???


HP

Poor baby, this is heartbreaking! Is there any way at all the male can be returned?? If it?s a case of it being illegal I?m happy to collect him an transport him once his better at my own risk, the female looks so sad! I hope the totally irresponsible dog owner sleeps well knowing letting their dog off the lead has caused so much damage an upset to our wildlife.

cassidy Wrote:

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

> Whoever removed him to be treated needs to do more

> to reunite the family as it is unfair to both to

> allow them to be separated permanently surely

> something can be done


Completely agree. Can we do a petition?

I saw all three young ones yesterday, although one seems to have split off and was hanging out away from the family group.

Whilst there, I was watching the Canada Geese goslings picking at the grassy area across the path, when a smallish off lead dog rushed towards them and made a grab. Luckily they all made it back through the railings unscathed, but it was a close call for one of them. Owner was very unconcerned and just strode past!

Banning all dogs because one bird of a pest species was wounded by one dog seems a tiny bit of an exaggerated response but typical of lazy and reflexive thinking these days, helped a lot by the ubiquity of social media. Leads on, by all means, but a ban...well, not really .
Maybe if they gated off this area and had big signs on each gate, it would make this area a more secure area for the ducks and wildlife in that area. They have sectioned other areas of the park like rose garden, playground, and gated stream area where the huts used to be. They are also in the process of redesigning the seated area near the duck pond. At the moment it's just a walk through, maybe a redesign might make dog walkers stop and think before opening the gate with their dogs.

No, Nigello. It's not a step too far to protect wildlife.


It's a step too far to expect that people walking their dogs can go anywhere they like.


Dogs tend to have a chase instinct and not that many people can control their dogs as they should be able to.


I'm all for a fenced off area.

There are plenty of places I take my dog and keep away from the ponds. It's not hard at all.

The reasonable solution, for which there is already existing legislation including control orders, is in the form of PSPOS. Dogs should be kept on a short lead on all paved areas and certain planted areas, if they are not they can be ordered to be or fined for non-compliance. Wholesale bans will not work as dogs and their owners are probably the most regular and intensive all year round park users. Peer pressure and a degree of self- policingfrom fellow dog owners and dog walkers might help.
Getting a bit daft now. We need to ban all pets that chase other animals. Starting with cats who kill birds and mice. Although I understand that they are not responsible for bird numbers generally declining. Fundamentally there is an argument that we should not keep any pets. But that isn't going to happen in the real world
Exactly - Pets have advantages for owners and wider society but they also have disadvantages. The idea that all pets are a very good thing is nonsense as is the idea of banning leashed dogs from public property. If you?re very concerned about ecology and the environment then don?t get a pet and save tonnes of carbon and reduce gosling menacing at the same time.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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