WBT Parliament petition to ban pet pesticides

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
26,630
Location
Embra
Dont know many dogs that seek out waterways to piss!.
Or cats for that matter.
Indeed, read the bit about the breakdown in the soil.
The treatment of our seed grain crops et al, will have a far higher effect on waterways than any dogs or cats, given the acreage covered.
Bert

Dog pisses against lamppost. Rain washes it down drain. Drain flows into river. Metabolites kill insects in river.

No doubt they are trying to stop its use in other areas such as seed dressings - if these are equally damaging??? If you are going to stop its use in applications where it is causing death to 'friendly' insects, then it needs to be all those uses to reverse the downward spiral of insect numbers.

But you obviously know far more about it than the scientists, so carry on. (y)

Col
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
26,630
Location
Embra
Apparently it's 10 million dogs and I doubt that many of them will ever see a river much less go in it seeing as most dogs, like their owners, are urban dwellers. I also doubt that many of those urban dogs can even swim. Can't say I've ever seen a Shi Tzu swimming the canal.

I suggest the WBT turn its attention to a serious issue like micro-plastics that is doing REAL damage. How about they take on the farming lobby about soil erosion since we demonstrated 15 years ago that more than 80% of the fine sediments that clog up spawning gravels are agricultural in origin. That is damaging the wild brown trout that they are supposed to be protecting.

"The highest levels of pesticides were downstream from water treatment works showing that urban areas were the main source" is rubbish. Water treatment works are almost always located near to urban areas which makes good sense. I live in a Wiltshire village and my waste water goes to Marlborough STW as does the waste from several other villages in the area.

Strawman argument... as always. :rolleyes:
 

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,635
Location
Up me own ar5e!
"The highest levels of pesticides were downstream from water treatment works showing that urban areas were the main source" is rubbish. Water treatment works are almost always located near to urban areas which makes good sense. I live in a Wiltshire village and my waste water goes to Marlborough STW as does the waste from several other villages in the area.

Why is this bit rubbish? They are saying the highest levels of pesticides found in pet flea treatments were found downstream of water treatment works. I wouldn't be surprised if higher levels of other pesticides were found in agricultural areas but those aren't the ones we are talking about here.

Yes all the other issues you mention are important but so it this one. You are always telling us that we are all part of the problem with water quality and indeed we are. But now all of a sudden when a new problem is identified that affects you (because you want to carry on using your current flea treatment) you aren't part of the problem. How does that work... oh hang on it doesn't does it.


Andy
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
8,793
Location
Wiltshire
I used a tick treatment once this spring for one dog out of three and do not foresee a need to do so again before next spring. I hardly see that that qualifies for the sort of vilification that seems to be being handed out. THAT is the rubbish bit.

Not every dog is going to need flea treatment and especially those in urban environments where they won't go either to the places where they can attract fleas and ticks or to rivers where they can shed their two drops that are supposedly going to poison kilometres of that watercourse.

A few years ago 10 kilometres of the upper Kennet was affected by a pesticide that knocked out most of the inverts along that 10k. from the STW almost to Hungerford. Using the analogy quoted upthread that meant that the pesticide came from the urban environment. Problem was that there wasn't a golf course in the urban environment and the specific pesticide was one that is used to kill leatherjackets on golf courses and the nearest one was over a mile out of town.

To say that dogs are responsible for wholesale pollution of every river in England is out & out nonsense which pre-supposes that if those substances are banned the rivers will return instantly to a pristine condition full of fish and inverts. There is a whole lot more to it than that. In my view the WBT is sticking up a couple of blo*dy great trees in the hope that people won't notice the rest of the wood.

Incidentally the tick treatment I use is called Bravecto and comes in the form of a palatable tablet so how that is going to pass out of the dog's skin into water perhaps you would care to explain.
 
Last edited:

JayP

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
3,402
Location
St Neots, Cambs
I used a tick treatment once this spring for one dog out of three and do not foresee a need to do so again before next spring. I hardly see that that qualifies for the sort of vilification that seems to be being handed out. THAT is the rubbish bit.

Not every dog is going to need flea treatment and especially those in urban environments where they won't go either to the places where they can attract fleas and ticks or to rivers where they can shed their two drops that are supposedly going to poison kilometres of that watercourse.

A few years ago 10 kilometres of the upper Kennet was affected by a pesticide that knocked out most of the inverts along that 10k. from the STW almost to Hungerford. Using the analogy quoted upthread that meant that the pesticide came from the urban environment. Problem was that there wasn't a golf course in the urban environment and the specific pesticide was one that is used to kill leatherjackets on golf courses and the nearest one was over a mile out of town.

To say that dogs are responsible for wholesale pollution of every river in England is out & out nonsense which pre-supposes that if those substances are banned the rivers will return instantly to a pristine condition full of fish and inverts. There is a whole lot more to it than that. In my view the WBT is sticking up a couple of blo*dy great trees in the hope that people won't notice the rest of the wood.

Incidentally the tick treatment I use is called Bravecto and comes in the form of a palatable tablet so how that is going to pass out of the dog's skin into water perhaps you would

Just checked my spaniel’s Advocate. The dreaded imidacloprid. Leaflet says do not allow to enter watercourses as this may be dangerous to fish. Ask vet for advice on disposal.
Just signed, now need to investigate effective alternative.
Bravecto, it's a flea and tick treatment taken orally. Get a prescription from your vet then buy online.

The active ingredient is fluralaner
 

glueman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
3,877
Location
on the banks of the A5
The chemicals in question are insecticides, so it's a question of whether they are being used as seed dressings. Are they???

Col
An insecticide is not a fungicide two totally different things,the idea of a fungicide as a seed dressing is to protect the seed from fungal attack once planted and prior to germination. It to some extent passes on into the plant to protect it from rust etc
 

Bongoch

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
400
Location
Bristol
As I've got access to it through my University decided to have a read through the original journal paper. Interesting study and certainly worrying that the chemicals in question were found in all of the water courses sampled. What I found particularly worrying was the >85% detection rate of the chemicals at 2 sites (Blyth at Bedlington Bridge & an unnamed tributary of the Arun at Horsham) which have no Wastewater Treatment Works (WTW). The paper makes a good case for WTWs being the major source of contamination in those rivers which have one but doesn't offer any explanation as to why the chemicals are present in the 2 sample sites which don't. In reality there needs to be a follow up study in which samples are taken from throughout the river systems being studied in order to better understand where the chemicals are entering the water course.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,071
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
OK, thanks. So those who argue about seed dressings in their excuses are totally barking up the wrong tree.

Col
Errrmmmm, no.

"In the UK there are currently no approvals for fipronil, however fipronil treated seed is imported into the UK. Most of this imported seed is treated with the product Mundial, which is approved in other EU member states for use on leeks, shallots, onions and a range of brassicas. There will be no restrictions on use of fipronil on glasshouse crops or on field vegetables that are harvested before flowering, which the NFU understands will mean the main uses of fipronil (as the product Mundial) in the UK will be exempt from restriction."

3rd paragraph from link I posted earlier, but just for you here it is again.


So perhaps I do know as much as "the scientists" but hey woof, woof.

Bert
 

Cap'n Fishy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
26,630
Location
Embra
Errrmmmm, no.

"In the UK there are currently no approvals for fipronil, however fipronil treated seed is imported into the UK. Most of this imported seed is treated with the product Mundial, which is approved in other EU member states for use on leeks, shallots, onions and a range of brassicas. There will be no restrictions on use of fipronil on glasshouse crops or on field vegetables that are harvested before flowering, which the NFU understands will mean the main uses of fipronil (as the product Mundial) in the UK will be exempt from restriction."

3rd paragraph from link I posted earlier, but just for you here it is again.


So perhaps I do know as much as "the scientists" but hey woof, woof.

Bert

Oh well, that must mean it is OK to use it in flea treatments for dogs and cats. (y)
 
Top