First mute swans, now dogs. At what point will the environmentalists stop kicking the animal kingdom around and focus on the biggest polluters of all - people!

Ron, most environmentalists acknowledge that people are the main cause of pollution. Animal contributions (whether swan, cow, dog, or chicken) are almost always related to the human status quo. (See also: introduced species.) Indeed, many environmentalists are devotedly pro-animal, because it's animal species who are most threatened by habitat loss.

I am a proponent of humans cleaning up after their companion animals…everywhere. That’s our job. It’s not the fault of the dogs, it’s the fault of their humans who do not clean up after them.

If we don’t police ourselves, there will be no more places left for our dogs. Let’s get angry, because unless we do, our beloved companions will be prohibited from participating in walks that we may only enjoy if they’re with us.

And exactly where do people think the legions of outdoor house cats relieve themselves? Do they not do any gardening and make unwelcome discoveries in the flower beds, only to find that these roaming cats use them as well-tended litter boxes.

Those cat-owners who allow their pets to roam outdoors are also contributing to the decline in water quality AND the decimation of the migratory song bird population.

The studies that are quoted regarding the source of bacteria pollution are conducted for E coli bacteria. Scientists develop 'libraries' of the E coli genetic signatures from various animals' scat. They compare the environmental samples they collect in a watershed to those libraries to determine the main contributor of bacterial colonies found.

When dealing with bacteria in water, waterfowl are often main contributors given their direct contact with water. Sources indicate that nationwide there are 144 million cats and dogs, so cleaning up after pets can have an impact. Compared with nearly 700 million chickens produced on the Eastern Shore each year it appears small. It's obvious that a multipronged approach must be pursued to control all forms of waste, whether people, pet, or poultry.

Let's be perfectly clear about the limitations of Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) technology.

"It is unknown at this time if BST can eventually achieve distinctions between different types of livestock (e.g. cattle, horse, swine, poultry, etc.) or wildlife (e.g. deer, waterfowl, raccoon, etc.) or pets (dogs, cats, etc.)" Source: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/ccn/info/Science/SWCS/H-2/bst.html#reliability

Unless Maryland is using DNA-based techniques (which I believe isn't the case), it's more than a stretch to make claims that some level of pollution is directly attributable to dogs. In fact, I once read a published analysis of a tidal creek - inhabited by *no* people, livestock, or pets - in which Maryland attributed the majority of the e. coli contamination to *pets*. In reality, wildlife was almost certainly the entire source of contamination in that watershed.

DNA source tracking IS being used in Maryland. The work is done at Salisbury University for MDE.

See:
http://www.salisbury.edu/newsevents/preview.asp?ID=1639

Get your facts straight and stop referencing Canadian websites that have nothing to do with what occurs in Maryland.

Enviroman,

From your link:

"However, that method (DNA analysis) was expensive and very time consuming. Since 1999, several new BST methods have been developed. Today, Drs. Frana and Venso expose samples from polluted waterways to 32 different concentrations of several different antibiotics, determining the contamination’s source based on how strongly the bacteria resists the antibiotics’ actions. While this method is less expensive, scientists still are searching for an even less costly testing procedure that provides similar accuracy."

In fact, MAR (Multiple Antibiotic Resistance) analysis is the current method of choice at Salisbury University for the State of Maryland.