I think what the Cambridge Water Department was saying was that after a search of all the published literature at the time, they found that it was geese poop, not dog poop, that posed a threat to drinking water quality, so they allow dogs off leash around Fresh Pond. The fence keeps dogs and animals (and people) from swimming in the water, but the dog waste still seeps into the ground and ends up in the water, but it hasn’t caused a problem for them. Dog waste seeping into the ground is the rationale ( I think) that our Water Department is giving for no longer allowing dogs off leash around Flint’s Pond. Apparently, this is not become an issue around Fresh Pond despite the fact that the path is VERY HEAVILY traveled by dogs and people. It’s like a highway there.
So, I would just be curious for a response to this from our Conservation Commission, our Water Department, and the LLCT at the next Zoom meeting because at the last meeting they stated that no analysis had actually been done on Flint’s Pond to determine what the source of the ecoli problem was. It could have likely been the geese. I’m not bringing this up for any personal reasons. I don’t go around Flint’s Pond much at all. I prefer the Pine Hill loop on the other side of Sandy Pond Road which I am on daily, but I think it’s important that any change in rules be based on the right information, particularly since it has been this way for many decades. This would be an historic change. > On Jul 11, 2022, at 6:57 AM, Christopher Eliot <c...@chriseliot.com> wrote: > > I think the full quote was "After an exhaustive search of the published > literature on the issue of dog waste and its impact on water quality, they > found no evidence that dog waste had a negative impact on water quality. > Instead, they found it was geese poop that was creating a problem with water > quality.” This might be specific to the Cambridge site and may or may not > apply to Lincoln. > > In any case, I think this shows how much research based information is > available that can inform these decisions. > >> Hello Linda, >> >> I suspect what they were conveying to you is that dog poo was not a problem >> at this particular site. Your statement “After an exhaustive search of the >> published literature on the issue of dog waste and its impact on water >> quality, they found no evidence that dog waste had a negative impact on >> water quality”, is incorrect. While the operative thing is the degree of >> pollution, dog poo, like many other animal excrements, does negatively >> affect water quality. This is especially the case where paved surfaces allow >> water and pollutants to runoff into water bodies. >> >> These two flyers, while basic, explains well: >> https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/slc_petwaste.pdf >> <https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/slc_petwaste.pdf> >> https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/Pet%20care%20fact%20sheet.pdf >> <https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/Pet%20care%20fact%20sheet.pdf> >> >> Regards, >> >> Donald > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
