Pets recovering after being bitten by poisonous snakes in Locks Heath (From This is Hampshire)

Adders are not POISONOUS they are VENOMOUS. you get it right in the article, sort out the headline.

there are more viper bites that don,t get reported like i said two weeks ago. the public just don,t get to hear about most viper bites, they go down in medical records and that,s about it.

These attacks, in the form of defence it must be said, will soon diminish with the onset of Autumn as the adders become more placid.

southy wrote:
there are more viper bites that don,t get reported like i said two weeks ago. the public just don,t get to hear about most viper bites, they go down in medical records and that,s about it.

They are Adders. Viper is the category of snake. If someone was bit by a wolf you would not say they where bit by a canine would you?

Lol,
Quick, get inside, its dangerous out there.
We need a cull, before someone gets killed...
OMG OMG OMG

I live in the New Forest, and despite owners of dogs being told to keep there dogs under control,a good many owners allow there dogs to go running through the heather,showing little or no regard for the rare wildlife that frequent heathland,and wonder why at times their dogs get bitten by adders.Firstly the dogs should not be in the heather, and how ignorant of the owners to allow their dogs to do it knowing that heathland is riff with adders,so what do they expect.
Most of the owners in the forest own some form of gun dog, who by nature are very inquisitive.
I feel it is the owners that need educating to the dangers of allowing this irresponsible act

DftT wrote:
Adders are not POISONOUS they are VENOMOUS. you get it right in the article, sort out the headline.

Erm...check out the definition of venom in the dictionary DftT.
.
"A poisonous secretion of an animal, such as a snake, spider, or scorpion, usually transmitted by a bite or sting"
.
In my books that makes any venomous snake poisonous too!

long memory wrote:
I live in the New Forest, and despite owners of dogs being told to keep there dogs under control,a good many owners allow there dogs to go running through the heather,showing little or no regard for the rare wildlife that frequent heathland,and wonder why at times their dogs get bitten by adders.Firstly the dogs should not be in the heather, and how ignorant of the owners to allow their dogs to do it knowing that heathland is riff with adders,so what do they expect.
Most of the owners in the forest own some form of gun dog, who by nature are very inquisitive.
I feel it is the owners that need educating to the dangers of allowing this irresponsible act

It is a good point to remind owners that dogs cause a huge disruption to ground nesting birds including the Dartford Warbler which seems to have become emblematic of the forest's wildlife. An owner unaware of the danger of adders is likelyt to be as unconcerned - or ignorant - of the damage a loose and excited dog is doing to the fauna. By the way - venomous implies that the creature can direct the poison for attack or defence into skin or bloodstream. Posionous can refer simply to the digestible state. In other words a spider can be venomous but a toadstool cannot. A puffer fish can be both.

It is quite amazing how few birds there are in The New Forest, one can walk for a long way before seeing one. As Andy points out, dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds, this is the case in many areas. Birds that would normally habitat our parks (Southampton Common springs to mind) are spooked by dogs and choose to nest elsewhere. Perhaps dogs should be culled, or banned from large areas of the forest in order for the natural wildlife to flourish.

Brite Spark wrote:
It is quite amazing how few birds there are in The New Forest, one can walk for a long way before seeing one. As Andy points out, dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds, this is the case in many areas. Birds that would normally habitat our parks (Southampton Common springs to mind) are spooked by dogs and choose to nest elsewhere. Perhaps dogs should be culled, or banned from large areas of the forest in order for the natural wildlife to flourish.

I think you ment cats.

And the French. They eat them before they even get here

Stillness wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:
It is quite amazing how few birds there are in The New Forest, one can walk for a long way before seeing one. As Andy points out, dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds, this is the case in many areas. Birds that would normally habitat our parks (Southampton Common springs to mind) are spooked by dogs and choose to nest elsewhere. Perhaps dogs should be culled, or banned from large areas of the forest in order for the natural wildlife to flourish.

I think you ment cats.

No seriously, I don't see many people taking their cats for walks in the forest or on Southampton Common. Granted however, that cats are responsible for the deaths of millions of fledglings every year in our gardens.

Irate Wintonian wrote:

DftT wrote:
Adders are not POISONOUS they are VENOMOUS. you get it right in the article, sort out the headline.

Erm...check out the definition of venom in the dictionary DftT.
.
"A poisonous secretion of an animal, such as a snake, spider, or scorpion, usually transmitted by a bite or sting"
.
In my books that makes any venomous snake poisonous too!

'Irate Wintonian' you are quick to point out the fact that you are capable of using a dictionary, congratulations. However, you have looked up the definition of venom, not venomous. A venomous animal will inject its prey by means of a bite, a poisonous animal makes its prey ingest the toxin by some other means.
I don't know which 'books' tell you that any venomous snake is poisonous but I suggest that a trip to a new bookshop is in order.

Maybe you could forward a copy of your newly purchased books to the alleged journalists at the Daily Echo as they often have similar problems conveying the so-called facts that they learn by watching various channel 5 documentaries.

Brite Spark wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Brite Spark wrote: It is quite amazing how few birds there are in The New Forest, one can walk for a long way before seeing one. As Andy points out, dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds, this is the case in many areas. Birds that would normally habitat our parks (Southampton Common springs to mind) are spooked by dogs and choose to nest elsewhere. Perhaps dogs should be culled, or banned from large areas of the forest in order for the natural wildlife to flourish.

I think you ment cats.

No seriously, I don't see many people taking their cats for walks in the forest or on Southampton Common. Granted however, that cats are responsible for the deaths of millions of fledglings every year in our gardens.

With reference to Brite Spark, I would be very interested to know what scientific research he has studied to conclude that "dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds" in many areas.

Mistydog4 wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Brite Spark wrote: It is quite amazing how few birds there are in The New Forest, one can walk for a long way before seeing one. As Andy points out, dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds, this is the case in many areas. Birds that would normally habitat our parks (Southampton Common springs to mind) are spooked by dogs and choose to nest elsewhere. Perhaps dogs should be culled, or banned from large areas of the forest in order for the natural wildlife to flourish.

I think you ment cats.

No seriously, I don't see many people taking their cats for walks in the forest or on Southampton Common. Granted however, that cats are responsible for the deaths of millions of fledglings every year in our gardens.

With reference to Brite Spark, I would be very interested to know what scientific research he has studied to conclude that "dogs are responsible for the rarity of birds" in many areas.

Bright Spark occasionally refers to his own scientific research or more usually he just makes it all up

I've just got my gun dog a 12 bore. If he is going to get the blame he may as well have the fun.

Just as a matter of interest I should point out that most gun dogs and definitely my own two Springer Spaniels are incredibly well trained and well behaved. During a recent walking holiday in Wales we were able to walk with them (off the lead) through fields of sheep with total confidence. In one place on an estate where the public were permitted to roam we came across 20,000 young pheasants which had just been released by the Gamekeeper. Needless to say there were no fatalities due to the dogs!
Someone like "Brite Spark" who suggests that dogs should be "culled" (what an appallingly thing to say) has probably never owned and certainly never trained a dog him/herself!

Glo1949 wrote:
Just as a matter of interest I should point out that most gun dogs and definitely my own two Springer Spaniels are incredibly well trained and well behaved. During a recent walking holiday in Wales we were able to walk with them (off the lead) through fields of sheep with total confidence. In one place on an estate where the public were permitted to roam we came across 20,000 young pheasants which had just been released by the Gamekeeper. Needless to say there were no fatalities due to the dogs!
Someone like "Brite Spark" who suggests that dogs should be "culled" (what an appallingly thing to say) has probably never owned and certainly never trained a dog him/herself!

I am sure that your dogs are well behaved,unfortunatel
y a good many people you live in the New Forest, think the forest is there specifically for their dogs, and the flora and fauna ,is secondary.A large percentage of the dog owners seem only concerned for their dogs welfare,no very little about the wildlife that lives here,and when they are confronted about the conduct of their dog/s you get comments like "what wildlife", or my dog doesn't do any harm, it is alway's a self denial stance from the uneducated dog owners
who either no nothing or wish to no anything about the disruption they do to the likes of Woodlark,Nightjar Dartford warblers etc,etc, as long as their doggy is having the time of his life
to hell with everything else

long memory wrote:

Glo1949 wrote: Just as a matter of interest I should point out that most gun dogs and definitely my own two Springer Spaniels are incredibly well trained and well behaved. During a recent walking holiday in Wales we were able to walk with them (off the lead) through fields of sheep with total confidence. In one place on an estate where the public were permitted to roam we came across 20,000 young pheasants which had just been released by the Gamekeeper. Needless to say there were no fatalities due to the dogs! Someone like "Brite Spark" who suggests that dogs should be "culled" (what an appallingly thing to say) has probably never owned and certainly never trained a dog him/herself!

I am sure that your dogs are well behaved,unfortunatel y a good many people you live in the New Forest, think the forest is there specifically for their dogs, and the flora and fauna ,is secondary.A large percentage of the dog owners seem only concerned for their dogs welfare,no very little about the wildlife that lives here,and when they are confronted about the conduct of their dog/s you get comments like "what wildlife", or my dog doesn't do any harm, it is alway's a self denial stance from the uneducated dog owners who either no nothing or wish to no anything about the disruption they do to the likes of Woodlark,Nightjar Dartford warblers etc,etc, as long as their doggy is having the time of his life to hell with everything else

twitch, twitch

long memory wrote:

Glo1949 wrote: Just as a matter of interest I should point out that most gun dogs and definitely my own two Springer Spaniels are incredibly well trained and well behaved. During a recent walking holiday in Wales we were able to walk with them (off the lead) through fields of sheep with total confidence. In one place on an estate where the public were permitted to roam we came across 20,000 young pheasants which had just been released by the Gamekeeper. Needless to say there were no fatalities due to the dogs! Someone like "Brite Spark" who suggests that dogs should be "culled" (what an appallingly thing to say) has probably never owned and certainly never trained a dog him/herself!

I am sure that your dogs are well behaved,unfortunatel y a good many people you live in the New Forest, think the forest is there specifically for their dogs, and the flora and fauna ,is secondary.A large percentage of the dog owners seem only concerned for their dogs welfare,no very little about the wildlife that lives here,and when they are confronted about the conduct of their dog/s you get comments like "what wildlife", or my dog doesn't do any harm, it is alway's a self denial stance from the uneducated dog owners who either no nothing or wish to no anything about the disruption they do to the likes of Woodlark,Nightjar Dartford warblers etc,etc, as long as their doggy is having the time of his life to hell with everything else

Oh dear, it would appear that "long memory" is using the same scientific research as "brite spark", the origins of which we are yet to discover. I would be so grateful if either of you could point me in the direction of your research which will substantiate your claims concerning widespread bird and wildlife disruption. Thank you.

Stillness wrote:
I've just got my gun dog a 12 bore. If he is going to get the blame he may as well have the fun.

Great ! I like your sense of humour. :)