Posted by Nigel Blake on August 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM
I am a pretty easy-going person in the main, but one thing that really makes me very angry is that small minority of dog owners who have no consideration whatsoever for the welfare of other creatures, or respect for other users of the countryside. This was on the Norfolk coast, and in contravention of bylaws etc. The moronic owner of this dog was throwing a ball into flocks of roosting waders, repeatedly flushing these tired migrants along the length of shoreline; even after I had "words".
For comment,and to illustrate that there are many aspects of wildlife photography to be explored and used in a way that broadens minds to the plight of so many species. No shooting data as I don't feel that is the point of this image, however it is cropped.
Posted by Nigel Blake on August 5, 2009 at 4:42 AM
I am surprised that after 43 views no-one else has voiced an opinion on this problem!
Some people are this irresponsible with their children too, they have lived too long in city's and have no idea about the countryside, in a recent picture test given to school children, not many of the animals were correctly identified, but they all got the picture of Yoda right!
By the way its a good picture, and shows off the problem well.
I've also come across exactly the same situation on many occasions and it certainly makes the blood boil. Some people just have no respect and common sense whatsoever.
Good on you for having 'words'. I'd always do exactly the same and hopefully it may deter the idiots from allowing and encouraging it from happen again, although I wouldn't bank on it
Your image captures the disturbance perfectly.
Lobbing a ball into roosting birds - makes him/her a tosser. I hope you photographed the person? It really sharpens their minds when they realize they've been recorded identifiably.
Nigel
Interesting post and comment. I guess this sort of issue is down to the ability to police the bylaws. The 'bark' is often worse than the 'bite' (seemed an apt pun) when it comes to protecting wildlife. I sometimes wonder why common sense doesn't prevail in such situations - I guess it comes down to the values of individuals. More images like this might help if used to promote animal welfare; sadly, the reality is that for many people it doesn’t even enter the radar.
As for the number of comments - who knows? Sure, exceptional images attract a healthy number of comments, as do bird pictures, but there seems to be a trend developing were only the 'name' photographers get big responses to posts. Also, the appetite for critical analysis seems to have waned at the same time. (Just observations folks.)
While the standard of some of the images remains high the forum seems to go through phases of being a 'shop-window' rather than a critique site. Maybe this is a natural cycle, made inevitable by the sheer number of images posted? Maybe we are all picture fatigued?
Good on you for taking the time to document and post the image.
Cheers,
Chris
Posted by David Taylor on August 5, 2009 at 7:38 AM
An excellent behavioural shot highlighting an all too common occurrence sadly.
As far as comments are concerned, sycophancy does seem to be prevalent but whether this is true or not is not for me to judge.
As far as critique is concerned subjectivity rules IMHO. I feel qualified to know what I do like and do not like but that is as far as it goes. An image is an image is an image. If it works for you, then that's fine; if it doesn't then that's fine as well.
In my twenties I came across Ceci n'est pas une pipe by René Magritte see
and that image and the philosophy behind it has influenced me ever since.
Posted by Anthony House on August 5, 2009 at 8:26 AM
It's a common occurrence Nigel and I found Norfolk to be one of the worse places for it...
Take Thornham, or dog shi% alley as I call it, the place is packed with them even Salthouse is getting bad now. I spend more time looking down at where I'm walking so as not to tread in shi$ than I do looking out for wildlife, I for one have no patience for them and with a temper like mine I'm finding myself arguing more and more with them...
Yes Nigel makes me mad too. You see it in rivers during the nesting season. Huge signs everywhere saying "Dogs must be kept on a lead". Now I can understand that the dogs can't read but the owners? Having said that, nowadays most of the owners probably can't read either!
Good picture capturing the scene
Posted by Andrew Stagg on August 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Sadly an all-to-common experience on our overcrowded island.
There are more than six million dogs in the UK.
There are a minefield of difficulties involved in penalising irresponsible owners - just look at he problems that the government has had with the dangerous dogs act (there are still more than 3000 people injured from dogs every year). Everyone has their own set of interests, for some it is walking the dog, for others birdwatching or wildlife photography; all of which can be combined and can become conflicting.
What we really need is a sensible debate giving rise to a combination of measures that can allow all interests to co-exist and or exist in separation. It is the sensible debate that we seem to struggle with at the moment.
I for one have nothing against dogs or dog ownership - I feel that many dog owners need to see the other side of the argument - my children don't like dogs and the words 'its all right he wont hurt you' when a dog half their size runs and jumps at them isn't what I want to hear. Putting the dog on a lead until they have passed by is surely only a little thing to ask. Yet when I ask, the usual reply is along the lines of 'I have a right to let my dog run free.' This notion of rights seems to be a big part of the problem, surely in that case I have a right to walk unmolested by somebody elses dog? Who has the 'greater right'? And there we go I have already gone away from sensible debate and crashed into human rights - and that is without dogs rights, birds rights etc etc.
For me I would personally like to see dogs banned from all nature reserves. That is not such a huge draconian measure, but they do disturb wildlife and I think that those of us who choose not to have a dog should have some areas where we can enjoy the countryside without the disturbance. I know that this won't happen because many, many dog lovers will be members of organisations that manage the reserves - the cost of which relies on membership and if they alienate those members, revenues will fall.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but it is an ever increasing issue as we struggle to enjoy our time on our tiny cramped island.
This is a difficult problem. Although I don’t own a dog, I do love them. I also hate seeing them straining on a lead and like to see them roaming free, as long as it is in an appropriate area and they are under proper control. Inevitably, there will be accidents as dogs will always go after a rabbit or similar. I’m glad you’ve found it to be a small minority of owners who are at fault, because that is my experience too. At my local pond, it is a very public area. I sit below a weir that also serves as a path for walkers (and dogs). Invariably, the owners are extremely courteous to me and some even take another route despite my encouragement to cross – I will always stop what I am doing to allow them to do so.
However, there are certainly exceptions that are difficult to understand. I was focussing on a duck, when something blocked my view. A small dog was sitting literally a foot in front of my lens. Worse, the owner was also sitting there on a large rock, looking over the pond. He made small talk for a minute or so without apparently noticing my 600mm lens in close proximity to his rear end. I made attempts to engage him in more meaningful conversation, at which point he produced a ball from a pocket and launched it straight into the group of ducks I was photographing. Needless to say the dog quickly followed – end of session. I have to say that the owner very nearly followed the dog, but thankfully I managed some self-restraint.
I don’t think we can legislate against that sort of behaviour, but I certainly share your frustration.
Posted by Lewis Thomson on August 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Unfortunately I don't think this situation will ever change, there will always be an ignorant minority no-matter what the law is. Owners are asked to keep dogs on leads at the RSPB reserve near me through the breeding season. Most respect this, but others couldn't care less, they walk past the visitor centre with the dog on a lead and as soon as they are out of view, the dogs are let off. It always amuses me when they see us coming in an RSPB top and hurry to put the animal back on the lead! Others will argue forever and a day, "but my dog is well behaved!" That may well be true, but it can't be one rule for one dog owner and a different rule for another, some people really struggle to grasp that. I am a dog owner myself and would never take my dog onto a reserve even though she is well behaved, there are so many more suitable places to go where there is little risk to wildlife.
I've lost count of the amount of times I have seen dogs tearing through the undergrowth chasing deer, when the owners are approached about it they find it funny! Also here in the Forest of Dean there are regular reports in the local paper with headlines of "Boar attacks dog!", when a more accurate headline would be "Dog attacks boar!".
Rant over, pheeewww!
Lewis.
Posted by Paul Hillion on August 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM
A problem that here on Guernsey is all to prevalent! Living on such a small island local dog owners naturally choose the beaches to walk their animals and the numbers of dog owners choosing to do so seems to be growing. So much so that 'half of Guernsey's regularly wintering waders have declined by over 50% over the past 20 years' I quote that fact from our monthly wader counts carried out by members of La Société Guernesiaise, anybody interested can read the full reports here...
Nigel, I only hope that images like yours get seen by a wider audience and hopefully go someway to educating the irresponsible dog owners that unfortunately I and my fellow photographers here on the island see all to frequently!
Posted by David Sewell on August 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM
This happens all over the place. I was at one of my local reserves on Saturday, a pair of idiots were walking along the coastal footpath throwing a ball for their dog that sent it running into the Kent Wildlife Trust reserve. Somebody had already had words with them. It did no good whatsoever. However, before I get too paranoid about the problem, there were plenty of other people walking dogs and neither dog nor walker was a problem in any way. As with thoughtless photographers, it is the few who give the majority a bad reputation.
A great piece of photojournalism, which sums up the problem well.
David
Posted by Peter Cairns on August 5, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Very interesting topic and I agree with Chris about bringing the issue to this forum - well done.
Many of the comments posted relate to 'welfare' - in this case a flock of waders being 'disturbed'.
Julian makes a comment about dogs being banned from nature reserves, you know those fenced-off areas where you can look but not touch; those places where your RSPB membership buys you a helping of nature.
Before I go any further, can I say I don't necessarily disagree with anything that's been said but just for a minute, let's take a step back and look at this from an ecological viewpoint. Let's imagine the same scene in say, Canada or Italy. Let's imagine that the dog is a bear or a wolf. What would we say then about the waders being 'disturbed'? It then becomes part of the natural ebb and flow of things surely?
OK, so my tongue is half-way into my cheek but it's all a matter of perspective. What us nature photographers consider inappropriate or irresponsible is born from our own self-interest, our own agenda - we're not looking at things ecologically any more than the dog walker.
Perhaps before we go off on a self-righteous slandering of other interest groups, we should take a look in the mirror and realise that very often what we do would be 'unnacceptable' to others.
Is it not true?
Pete
Posted by David Taylor on August 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Yes, you are right Peter. I thought to myself that the dog is only doing what comes naturally.
Just as when their owners take them for walks in our local parks so they can deposit their waste. One does it no big deal, when many do it there's a problem. It's all a matter of degree I suppose.
I don't think the main issue is with the dog (or any other animal doing what comes naturally) disturbing the birds, but the way the thoughtless owner was deliberately throwing the ball into the flock of birds.
Commonsense and respect for wildlife unfortunately doesn't always come naturally to some people, as this example clearly shows.
As a dog owner who walks his dog everyday around a nature reserve and most weekends down the beach, myself and my dog have as much right to use the beach as anybody else, dog's are fine its the idiot who is in charge that you should be venting at.
Should we have the same debate about the disturbance by horse riders on the beach or what about holidaymakers and their kids playing on the beach with football's, cricket balls, and beach balls, what about all the fishermen we get locally should they also be banned from the beach for disturbance, shouldn't your aim not be confrontational but educational explaining to the person why ?????????? .
Phil.
Posted by Kim Connolly on August 5, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I have two labradors and I love them to bits. However, I walk them - after they have done what is necessary in my garden, for an hour on the local hills around 7. 30 am every morning. They are usually off the lead but stay close to me - during the breeding season - I keep them on the lead. If I am birding I leave them at home.
The scene on the photograph is poor and I agree with all that has been said.
However, many times in recent years I have been horrified by the behaviour of some photographers in hides, having scant regard for birdwatchers and often pushing a lens directly infront of a telescope in order to get a shot!
Bad manners - sadly - are not just with the dog owners - nor are all photographers discourteous. On the whole I feel it is only a minority that let us all down.
I agree that the dog owner chucking the ball into the roosting flock is wrong. However I see nothing wrong in the image above at all. They can fly can't they. They spend their whole lives on edge waiting to move at the slightest hint of danger. I sometimes think that some Birders (Of which I am one) and Nature Photographers can be a bit precious when it comes to Dogs and bird disturbance, not withstanding the problem with dog messes.
maybe a pic of the owner throwing the ball into the waders would have ben more appropriate.
As shown all I see in the photo is dog running towards a group of waders on the shore. A common everyday occurrence and the only story being told is by you and not the photo.
This photo could be used for a campaign to rid dogs from our shores for disturbing wildlife just as easily as it could be used by a dog lovers group to illustrate a happy dog being exercised.
As to your description of the owner's behaviour, all too common in all walks (excuse the pun) where folks just seem to care about no.1 and to hell with everyone(thing) else.
I have had successful prosecutions in the past by the use of the lens for owner and dog, local authorities will act if disturbance under any of the schedules is proven, also the leaving of mess.
an aside if each dropping is 500 grammes and there are 6 million dogs that is 3 million Kilo thingy's of cr&p dropped every day boy no wonder you cant go far before you need to clean your shoes!!!
WOW!! I wish this many words had been written on my recent 'dog' post (red fox in street)!
Nigel, the proverbial 'can of worms' is well and truly open here! Any chance of posting an image of a cat with a song bird in its mouth, please? We can really get stuck in then.
Ok, I know it is a serious topic but to my knowledge (I could be wrong) I don't think dogs (comparatively) do that much damage to wildlife, do they? I'm guessing, as someone mentioned earlier, that in general dog owners are responsible and (as with most 'interest groups') it is a minority that cause the problems. It seems that the lack of poo-pa-scoopas is more of an issue.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. I've heard a story about a falconer's golden eagle diver-bombing a labrador on a hillside - things tend to even themselves out in the end.
Discussion
22 repliesFor comment,and to illustrate that there are many aspects of wildlife photography to be explored and used in a way that broadens minds to the plight of so many species. No shooting data as I don't feel that is the point of this image, however it is cropped.
By the way its a good picture, and shows off the problem well.
I've also come across exactly the same situation on many occasions and it certainly makes the blood boil. Some people just have no respect and common sense whatsoever.
Good on you for having 'words'. I'd always do exactly the same and hopefully it may deter the idiots from allowing and encouraging it from happen again, although I wouldn't bank on it
Your image captures the disturbance perfectly.
Interesting post and comment. I guess this sort of issue is down to the ability to police the bylaws. The 'bark' is often worse than the 'bite' (seemed an apt pun) when it comes to protecting wildlife. I sometimes wonder why common sense doesn't prevail in such situations - I guess it comes down to the values of individuals. More images like this might help if used to promote animal welfare; sadly, the reality is that for many people it doesn’t even enter the radar.
As for the number of comments - who knows?
While the standard of some of the images remains high the forum seems to go through phases of being a 'shop-window' rather than a critique site. Maybe this is a natural cycle, made inevitable by the sheer number of images posted? Maybe we are all picture fatigued?
Good on you for taking the time to document and post the image.
Cheers,
Chris
As far as comments are concerned, sycophancy does seem to be prevalent but whether this is true or not is not for me to judge.
As far as critique is concerned subjectivity rules IMHO. I feel qualified to know what I do like and do not like but that is as far as it goes. An image is an image is an image. If it works for you, then that's fine; if it doesn't then that's fine as well.
In my twenties I came across Ceci n'est pas une pipe by René Magritte see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte
and that image and the philosophy behind it has influenced me ever since.
Take Thornham, or dog shi% alley as I call it, the place is packed with them even Salthouse is getting bad now. I spend more time looking down at where I'm walking so as not to tread in shi$ than I do looking out for wildlife, I for one have no patience for them and with a temper like mine I'm finding myself arguing more and more with them...
Tony
Good picture capturing the scene
There are more than six million dogs in the UK.
There are a minefield of difficulties involved in penalising irresponsible owners - just look at he problems that the government has had with the dangerous dogs act (there are still more than 3000 people injured from dogs every year). Everyone has their own set of interests, for some it is walking the dog, for others birdwatching or wildlife photography; all of which can be combined and can become conflicting.
What we really need is a sensible debate giving rise to a combination of measures that can allow all interests to co-exist and or exist in separation. It is the sensible debate that we seem to struggle with at the moment.
I for one have nothing against dogs or dog ownership - I feel that many dog owners need to see the other side of the argument - my children don't like dogs and the words 'its all right he wont hurt you' when a dog half their size runs and jumps at them isn't what I want to hear. Putting the dog on a lead until they have passed by is surely only a little thing to ask. Yet when I ask, the usual reply is along the lines of 'I have a right to let my dog run free.' This notion of rights seems to be a big part of the problem, surely in that case I have a right to walk unmolested by somebody elses dog? Who has the 'greater right'? And there we go I have already gone away from sensible debate and crashed into human rights - and that is without dogs rights, birds rights etc etc.
For me I would personally like to see dogs banned from all nature reserves. That is not such a huge draconian measure, but they do disturb wildlife and I think that those of us who choose not to have a dog should have some areas where we can enjoy the countryside without the disturbance. I know that this won't happen because many, many dog lovers will be members of organisations that manage the reserves - the cost of which relies on membership and if they alienate those members, revenues will fall.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but it is an ever increasing issue as we struggle to enjoy our time on our tiny cramped island.
Andrew Stagg
www.andrewstagg.com
However, there are certainly exceptions that are difficult to understand. I was focussing on a duck, when something blocked my view. A small dog was sitting literally a foot in front of my lens. Worse, the owner was also sitting there on a large rock, looking over the pond. He made small talk for a minute or so without apparently noticing my 600mm lens in close proximity to his rear end. I made attempts to engage him in more meaningful conversation, at which point he produced a ball from a pocket and launched it straight into the group of ducks I was photographing. Needless to say the dog quickly followed – end of session. I have to say that the owner very nearly followed the dog, but thankfully I managed some self-restraint.
I don’t think we can legislate against that sort of behaviour, but I certainly share your frustration.
Unfortunately I don't think this situation will ever change, there will always be an ignorant minority no-matter what the law is. Owners are asked to keep dogs on leads at the RSPB reserve near me through the breeding season. Most respect this, but others couldn't care less, they walk past the visitor centre with the dog on a lead and as soon as they are out of view, the dogs are let off. It always amuses me when they see us coming in an RSPB top and hurry to put the animal back on the lead! Others will argue forever and a day, "but my dog is well behaved!" That may well be true, but it can't be one rule for one dog owner and a different rule for another, some people really struggle to grasp that. I am a dog owner myself and would never take my dog onto a reserve even though she is well behaved, there are so many more suitable places to go where there is little risk to wildlife.
I've lost count of the amount of times I have seen dogs tearing through the undergrowth chasing deer, when the owners are approached about it they find it funny!
Rant over, pheeewww!
Lewis.
http://www.societe.org.gg/projects/webs/webs_intro.html
Nigel, I only hope that images like yours get seen by a wider audience and hopefully go someway to educating the irresponsible dog owners that unfortunately I and my fellow photographers here on the island see all to frequently!
A great piece of photojournalism, which sums up the problem well.
David
Many of the comments posted relate to 'welfare' - in this case a flock of waders being 'disturbed'.
Julian makes a comment about dogs being banned from nature reserves, you know those fenced-off areas where you can look but not touch; those places where your RSPB membership buys you a helping of nature.
Before I go any further, can I say I don't necessarily disagree with anything that's been said but just for a minute, let's take a step back and look at this from an ecological viewpoint. Let's imagine the same scene in say, Canada or Italy. Let's imagine that the dog is a bear or a wolf. What would we say then about the waders being 'disturbed'? It then becomes part of the natural ebb and flow of things surely?
OK, so my tongue is half-way into my cheek but it's all a matter of perspective. What us nature photographers consider inappropriate or irresponsible is born from our own self-interest, our own agenda - we're not looking at things ecologically any more than the dog walker.
Perhaps before we go off on a self-righteous slandering of other interest groups, we should take a look in the mirror and realise that very often what we do would be 'unnacceptable' to others.
Is it not true?
Pete
Just as when their owners take them for walks in our local parks so they can deposit their waste. One does it no big deal, when many do it there's a problem. It's all a matter of degree I suppose.
Commonsense and respect for wildlife unfortunately doesn't always come naturally to some people, as this example clearly shows.
Should we have the same debate about the disturbance by horse riders on the beach or what about holidaymakers and their kids playing on the beach with football's, cricket balls, and beach balls, what about all the fishermen we get locally should they also be banned from the beach for disturbance, shouldn't your aim not be confrontational but educational explaining to the person why ??????????
Phil.
The scene on the photograph is poor and I agree with all that has been said.
However, many times in recent years I have been horrified by the behaviour of some photographers in hides, having scant regard for birdwatchers and often pushing a lens directly infront of a telescope in order to get a shot!
Bad manners - sadly - are not just with the dog owners - nor are all photographers discourteous. On the whole I feel it is only a minority that let us all down.
I of course have an immaculately behaved dog
As shown all I see in the photo is dog running towards a group of waders on the shore. A common everyday occurrence and the only story being told is by you and not the photo.
This photo could be used for a campaign to rid dogs from our shores for disturbing wildlife just as easily as it could be used by a dog lovers group to illustrate a happy dog being exercised.
As to your description of the owner's behaviour, all too common in all walks (excuse the pun) where folks just seem to care about no.1 and to hell with everyone(thing) else.
John
an aside if each dropping is 500 grammes and there are 6 million dogs that is 3 million Kilo thingy's of cr&p dropped every day boy no wonder you cant go far before you need to clean your shoes!!!
Nigel, the proverbial 'can of worms' is well and truly open here! Any chance of posting an image of a cat with a song bird in its mouth, please? We can really get stuck in then.
Ok, I know it is a serious topic but to my knowledge (I could be wrong) I don't think dogs (comparatively) do that much damage to wildlife, do they? I'm guessing, as someone mentioned earlier, that in general dog owners are responsible and (as with most 'interest groups') it is a minority that cause the problems. It seems that the lack of poo-pa-scoopas is more of an issue.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. I've heard a story about a falconer's golden eagle diver-bombing a labrador on a hillside - things tend to even themselves out in the end.