Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
No worries. There is a longer more detailed thread on the subject if you do a search for it.
Col
Pet flea treatments poisoning rivers across England, scientists find
- Thread starter badcaster
- Start date
No worries. There is a longer more detailed thread on the subject if you do a search for it.
Col
Yes I am in favour of not polluting rivers. As I said on the previous page I just don't believe that dog flea treatment is damaging Rivers in such proportion compared to everything else that finds it's way in to those rivers.
Raw sewage being pumped in rivers and dogs pissing against lamppost's is the best we can do? Come on.
I remember seeing your dog person test on another occasion you'd mentioned about not liking dogs and 'dog people'. What is it about 'dog people' that is a Pita?I think the tablets might get excreted as even more toxic metabolites, and pissed against lampposts and then washed by rain into the storm drains and on into rivers? Not sure. Read the published papers on the subject and that other thread I already mentioned.
I have absolutely nothing against dogs. I like dogs. It's 'Dog People' that are an utter PITA. If you don't know whether you are a 'Dog Person', I can send you the test. It's a 3 MB PDF. I can email it. PM me if interested.
Col
How many people spray permethrin all over their clothes near rivers when walking? Salmon fishermen and such? There aren't many things as effective as permethrin for ticks though, right?
You can point in me in the direction of whatever paper you like. The original article doesn't even state how the 80% is administered, or what might be the most or least environmentally sound method of flea treatment.
Like you said, you don't know, it's just an easy target to go for because stopping sewage being pumped in to rivers or car wash run off or normal shampoo and soap killing wildlife is a bit more tricky.
Stopping your dog from getting fleas is necessary, washing your car every week with shampoo like so many people do is unnecessary, water companies cutting corners and allowing sewage in to waterways is unnecessary.
Why don't you go after car washes instead? Or water companies? Or try to find out the most environmentally friendly method of fleaing pets instead of 'flea treatment is bad'? It has to be done way or another.
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
Some Sunday reading...
Neonicitinoid Insecticides in British Freshwaters
If you want to cut to the chase, the conclusions and recommendations are from p 33. Take from it what you will.
If you've a problem with pesticides why don't you just campaign against them in general, neonicitinoids in pet flea treatment is just a tiny corner of the tip of the iceberg.
Look back to my earlier comment. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids are highly toxic to insects, and some to fish, but unlike neonics, they are very pidly broken down and inactivated in the environment. So they don't cause long term ecological damage.
So what short term damage do they do?
What's your answer for an alternative to flea treatments for pets and why are they being singled out?
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
That's not what these papers are saying.
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
They are not being singled-out. They are being identified as a significant contributor.
There are all kinds of pesticides which don't discriminate (and have the same things in them) raw sewage, car shampoo and a thousand other things washed directly in to rivers. I can't see how dogs pissing on lampposts can be hurting rivers as much as your papers say.
Of course whatever we can do to make rivers cleaner, I'm all for.
There are already different methods of treating pet fleas, so, is there one which is significantly better than others which we should be favouring? Is your lamppost theory correct?
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
Read the papers.
OK, what I get from it is that garden centres and plants are the major source of neonicotinoids in the environment, where their use has decreased as a commercial crop insecticide, and that this has already been shown to be the case in Canada.
It mentions external use of pet parasite treatment 'usually a poured on solution', which is not really accurate.
I can't get much information about how much of a factor pet flea treatments containing neonicotinoids are, because the paper states twice in the bit I've read, that there is no data.
Using a pyrethrin such as in Frontline spot on: the pyrethrin decays in sunlight within a day or 2 and is degraded by micro organisms.
Frontline isn't as effective as it used to be, which is why we use bravecto.
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
Yep - what we spray on our plants is also a factor and we need to be careful it is not insecticides that can find their way into watercourses in active forms.
The problem with this thread is that it is just going over all the same stuff that has been discussed at length already.
The problem with neonicotinoids is their potency. Even if they are "just a tiny corner of the tip of the iceberg" as you put it, that is still more than enough to kill aquatic invertebrates, and these kinds of concentrations are being detected in rivers. So, we are being told that we need to stop using them everywhere they are currently being used.
Bravecto (fluralaner) is neither a pyrethroid nor a neonic. It is mainly excreted in the faeces so if you are a good dog owner and bag up the faeces, there should be little or no environmental impact. Problems would only arise if it had widespread use in agriculture.
glueman
Well-known member
There is a warning on Brave to saying do not allow it to enter water courses
Cap'n Fishy
Well-known member
I thought it was, and that it was way more toxic than imidacloprid to insects? And also that bravecto treatment lingers in the bloodstream.
We use it because it's effective and our dogs are healthy and don't show any side effects.
..... It doesn't, unless you go and throw a load of it in to a river or lake.
