Is taking a dog herping with you a bad idea?

[Removed_2815]

Cindy,
I can appreciate your point of view. However, if you were to look at the reports and studies on the subject then you too would embrace my verbiage, as these animals do wreak havoc on natural populations. Since you have not, then you are free to agree to disagree, but it would be nice if you could direct us to some scientific basis for your disagreement.
I don't want to convince you that you're wrong to let your animals loose as it's none of my business what you do. It's entirely your choice and I don't judge you, but you should understand that letting cats and dogs out into the wild does have a significant negative impact (wreaking havoc, so to speak) on the natural ecosystems that I speak of.
Kind regards,
Ryan

[Siretsap]

If it were such a nuisance, then we wouln't even go in those secluted areas in the 1st place. Try going into a swamp where there are billions of baby toads and try not to kill one with your steps...

It all comes down to how you raised your dog and how he reacts to wildlife. I know people who have very well trained dogs that do not do half the dammage to wildlife than would a regular person who tries to go herping...

[Fieldnotes]

In Hawaii, where I lived for 3-months they would ban importation of nearly every species of animal. Except CATS!! Can you imagine that, banning all animals except the most devastating of them all. I would see passengers at the airport caring rats (oh, I mean cats) in “carry-on cages.”

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Siretsap
If it were such a nuisance, then we wouln't even go in those secluted areas in the 1st place. Try going into a swamp where there are billions of baby toads and try not to kill one with your steps...

Responsible field-herpers wouldn't do this. Are you advocating this? Why would you enter an area where you're aware that there is a high likelihood of killing the natural fauna?

Originally posted by Siretsap
It all comes down to how you raised your dog and how he reacts to wildlife.

I agree, but these studies are not based on the individual. Everyone's arguments with these facts are "not my dog" or "not my cat" but we're talking about the cumulative effect of these animals. I am also not comparing cats and dogs to other species (such as man), I'm only pointing out that these animals (cats, dogs, hogs, etc.) have a negative impact on natural ecosystems.

I really wish everyone could stop comparing it to the actions of man, that's not what's at issue here. I've already pointed out that this negative impact is a result of man introducing these species, so there's no comparison, it is a result of man's actions.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Siretsap]

What would make someone a responsible field herper???

We all know that as soon as you move a rock, a log or touch anything in a secluted area, you changed the course of evolution for the surroundings of that rock or log.
I won't even go in details to how many lichens or moss or other plants that are dammaged when we walk into those woods or wild life areas.

We can all pretend to be best field herpers, but no one can go in and out without causing some form of dammage.

I never argued with the studies you are talking about. We all know what stray cats can do. But a domesticated and well trained dog...

Anyhow, the subject derived from it's original post. I would only bring a dog that has a calm temperment and is well trained to obey you when you go herping.

[Removed_2815]

Once again, I am not defending the actions of man. Just because humans have a negative impact on ecosystems does not mean that introduced domestic animals are any less of a problem. We are talking about the impacts of domestic animals on ecosystems, not whether humans have a greater impact.
You seem to be defending the actions of introduced species by comparing it to man.
Ryan

[Siretsap]

No I am not defending what you insinuate.

The studies you are talking about are on stay populations or animals that are left unsupervised (letting your cat out all day).

The initial question of this post was about brigning a dog on a herping day. My answer is yes if your dog is well trained and a calm temperment.

[Reticsrule]

well my dog is definetly not calm she is crazy.also she MUST be in front of you at all times(i mean like 20 feet ahead of you). therefor i would say that she could easily scare everything in my path.

[ChurleR]

1)<i>
Dogs and Cats were not genetically engineered by humans. They were domesticated. They would still be around reguardelss, and considdering what people do, they are the least of all threats to a natural ecosystem.</i>

What are the naturally occuring breeds of dog and cat within Canada and the U.S. that would be there without humans?

2)<i>You also stated that Prey populations are kept in check by their natural predators - that isn`t entirely true. Prey Populations always overpopulate. It is something sometimes uncontrollable.</i>

I live in Georgia in the US, people down here have a great tradition of hunting deer every "season". One of their main reasons for that is because "The deer population gets too high and we have to keep it in check or else more people will die in wrecks, etc". The only reason we have such a huge deer population is because we killed all of the wolves and mountain lions that used to inhabit this area and keep the populations in check.

It's a large cycle that's rather simple, the prey populations get large, the predator populations expand and catch up because food is more abundant. The prey starts to dwindle as the population of predators booms and predators start dying out therough competition. The prey population picks back up.... rinse, repeat, etc.

Humans are the main disturbance in this cycle, and often we completely destroy it. Cats and dogs limit the prey population in such a way in some areas that the natural predators get into a fierce competition over resources and tend to have lower population numbers in that area. Mainly they're so bad because of people abandoning them and being left to their own devices they have become an invasive species just like any other that takes resources from naturally occuring animals.

I'll find Dr. Wolfe's thesis down here one day and rattle of some statistics that might change your mind, at least for the southeastern US... I can't speak for Canada so much but I'm quite sure that you have the same problem up there.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by ydnic
It is a fact, and if you are learning ecosystem dynamics, I would think that you might know that.

I would have addressed this earlier, had you not slipped it in in a subsequent edit . I am not learning ecosystem dynamics, that's basic biology from many, many years ago. ChurleR has again addressed this quite nicely, humans are often the main disturbance in the overpopulation of either predator or prey.

Originally posted by Siretsap
No I am not defending what you insinuate.

Both of your previous posts relate the impacts from domestic animals to field-herping by humans as a means to justify letting your animals run loose.

Originally posted by Siretsap
The studies you are talking about are on stay populations or animals that are left unsupervised (letting your cat out all day).

The potential damage to the ecosystem is the same whether the domesticated animal is allowed to trample through the wilderness for an hour, a day, a week, or it's whole life. Obviously a feral cat that lives its entire life outdoors is going to do more damage than one that's only let out once a week. The fact that it does any damage at all is what worries ecologists, and is reason enough for my original statement in this thread.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by ydnic
IMHO I don`t belive that taking my dog for a walk down to the river, to an off leash park, or owning an acreage with freeroaming pets, wreaks havoc as you put it .

The original post asks about taking a dog field-herping. Obviously, an off-leash park is not the sensitive ecosystem that we have been discussing throughout this thread. I never said that dogs must be locked up at all times; there are appropriate places to take them for walks, such as an off-leash park.
Ryan

[Removed_2815]

Reticsrule, though I believe this thread elicited a good discussion, I kind of took it off track from your original query. All of the biological reasons why you shouldn't bring the dog aside, I think you'd have better luck on your own. It is possible that all the commotion is enough to scare off any possible finds before you get a chance to see them.
Good luck to you!
Ryan

[Reticsrule]

RMBolton: the thread did go off topic but i appreciate the extra info. the really bad thing about my dog(as far as field herping goes) is that she is always like 15 feet ahead of you therefor any ground you cover she covers first. so if a snake was sitting in the field basking shell scare it away.

[ydnic]

"I would have addressed this earlier, had you not slipped it in in a subsequent edit"

when was it edited :
Last edited by ydnic on 02-17-05 at 09:07 PM

When did you reply?

02-17-05 09:32 PM

I didn`t edit it to add anything - I edited to correct a spelling mistake

Also - I don`t think I need scientific evidence to back up my own opinon

"Obviously, an off-leash park is not the sensitive ecosystem that we have been discussing throughout this thread."

The off leash park where I live is down by our river in the woods - of course you wouldn`t have known that since I didn`t go into details of the off leash park I use - but please stop ripping apart my OPINION - it was an opinon and nothing more - which doesn`t need to be cut and quoted constantly throughout this thread.

I am quite puzzled at how in one thread - you are not trying to convince me I am wrong but you continue to belittle my opinon - which I have rights to.

You say that an appropriate place is an off leash park - but that is a generalization as well because you obviously didn`t know my off leash park is at our river and in the woods where there is plenty of natrual wildlife. I am sure that this isn`t the only off leash park like this either - so an off leash park isn`t so obivously insensitive to these things.

[Removed_2815]

The quote function on this forum is not here to belittle opinions, but merely to address specific aspects of a person's post. If you don't want to be quoted then don't post.

For the record, most of the people here have been speaking from a scientific perspective, so to come in with a purely anecdotal opinion is what elicits argument. I've already said that you're welcome to your opinion, but you should know that my original post that you called into question is based on fact. If you want to refute the statement then bring something factual to the argument. To just come out and say that you don't think there's a negative impact and that a natural ecosystem "makes a great place for domestic animals" contributes nothing, to be brutally honest. Give us something substantial and we'll listen.

As for the off-leash park discussion, if the park is in fact an off-leash park, as sanctioned by your municipality, then ipso facto, it would not be a sensitive ecosystem. Hence my generalization that it would be okay to take your dog to such a place. If it's just a place by the river that you take your dog to then that doesn't necessarily make it an off-leash park. Also, recall that the original poster was not asking about taking his dog for a walk in an off-leash park.

Ryan