Re: A letter I agree with
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:34:46 +0100
On 28 Apr 2006 22:01:28 -0700, "Philip Hart" <auldphart@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:
32tv42p8g8oull2pvkmntishg48f3ng0rp@xxxxxxxxxx
The Woodland Trust's Dog Lavatories.
I recently spent time at a Woodland Trust woodland site and was taken
aback that I was the only visitor there who didn't have a dog. Others
arrived and let their dogs wander out of control all over the place. I
was struck by a feeling of being in a manufactured and artificial
environment where the woodland picture was evident but lacking
expected wildlife.
The idea that conservationists are protecting woodlands seems deeply
flawed when the woodlands are being abused as dog lavatories to the
detriment of wildlife and the natural environment.
If you had any knowledge of conservation, you would know that the
problem
caused by dogs in reserves is perennial and ongoing. Often the reserve
is a
public open space in which conservation has managed to gain a toehold.
Attempting to ban dogs, or insisting they are kept on leads, produces a
backlash that leaves the conservationists isolated and even excluded.
Desecrating woodlands by allowing them to be used as dog lavatories is
not conservation. That's another reason the so-called
conservationists are fakes.
Go to a reserve which is in private ownership and you will see a dog
free
environment in which people have to follow the rules or be thrown out.
Much better.
Perhaps it is time to dump the dubious philosophy of "protecting"
woodlands of converting them into public recreation areas and instead
let them be undisturbed havens for wildlife.
By your own admission, you went and disturbed one, admittedly not as
badly
as the thoughtless dog owners.
Sure, not as a regular and to gather information as to the damage
that can be done to woodlands and their wildlife. Better to leave the
woodlands undisturbed from human intrusion rather than "protect" them
by damaging them.
First you have to own it. Then you can go ahead, as many organisations
do
already, limiting access in a variety of ways such as issuing day
passes in
advance, etc. Somewhat like fishing licences on choice stretches of
water.
Not in the case of the Woodland Trust's dog lavatories.
It would certainly cost the taxpayer a lot less.
The Woodland Trust is a charity.
Subsidised by the taxpayer and substantially funded by grants from the
public purse.
Angus Macmillan
PH
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.
- References:
- A letter I agree with
- From: amacmil304
- Re: A letter I agree with
- From: Philip Hart
- A letter I agree with
- Prev by Date: Re: A letter I agree with
- Next by Date: Re: A letter I agree with
- Previous by thread: Re: A letter I agree with
- Next by thread: A letter I agree with
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
