Poo-lution continued

Limitations

The reluctance of many residents to handle dog waste is the biggest limitation to controlling pet waste. According to a Chesapeake Bay survey, 44% of dog walkers who do not pick up indicated they would still refuse to pick up, even if confronted by complaints from neighbors, threatened with fines, or provided with more sanitary and convenient options for retrieving and disposing of dog waste. Table 2 provides factors that compel residents to pick up after their dog, along with some interesting rationalizations for not doing so.

  Dog Owners' Rationale for Picking Up or Not Picking Up After Their Dog (HGIC, 1996)

Reasons for not picking it up:

Because it eventually goes away

Just because

Too much work

On edge of my property

It’s in my yard

It’s in the woods

Not prepared

No reason

Small dog, small waste

Use as fertilizer

Sanitary reasons

Own a cat or other kind of pet

 

Reasons for picking up:

It’s the law

Environmental reasons

Hygiene/health reasons

Neighborhood courtesy

It should be done

Keep the yard clean

 

This strong resistance to handling dog wastes suggests that an alternative message may be necessary. One example might be to encourage the practice of rudimentary manure management by training dogs to use areas that are not hydraulically connected to the stream or close to a buffer. For more information, see Understanding Watershed Behavior, Article 126 in The Practice of Watershed Protection.

Effectiveness

The pollutant removal abilities of pet waste collection programs has never been quantified although there is ample evidence that programs such as these are necessary in urban areas. For example, in the Four Mile Run watershed in Northern Virginia, a dog population of 11,400 is estimated to contribute about 5,000 pounds of solid waste every day and has been identified as a major contributor of bacteria to the stream. Approximately 500 fecal coliform samples have been taken from Four Mile Run and its tributaries since 1990, and about 50% of these samples have been over Virginia water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. (NVPDC, 1998). A project is currently underway to pinpoint the source of bacterial contamination through DNA fingerprinting.

There is plenty of evidence that pets and urban wildlife can be significant bacterial sources. According to van der Wel (1995) a single gram of dog feces can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria. Dogs can also be significant hosts of both Giardia and Salmonella (Pitt, 1998). It was also noted in a 1982 study of Baltimore, Maryland catchments that dog feces were the single greatest contributor of fecal coliform and fecal strep bacteria (Lim and Olivieri, 1982). This evidence points to a need for enforcement and education to raise resident awareness regarding the water quality impacts of this urban pollutant source

Cost

The cost of animal waste collection programs will vary depending on the intensity of the effort and the paths chosen to control pet waste. The most popular way is through an ordinance, but managers must consider the cost of enforcement, including staff and equipment requirements. Public education program costs are determined by the type of materials produced and the method of distribution selected. Signs in parks may initially have a higher cost than printed materials, but can last for many years. Signs may also be more effective, since they act as on-site reminders to dog owners to clean up in parks.

References

Alderserio, K., D. Wait and M. Sobsey. 1996. Detection and Characterization of Male-Specific RNA Coliphages in a New York City Reservoir to Distinguish Between Human and Non-human Sources of Contamination. Proceedings of a Symposium on New York City Water Supply Studies, ed. McDonnell et al. TPS-96-2. American Water Resources Association. Herndon, VA.

Hardwick, N. 1997. Lake Sammamish Watershed Water Quality Survey. King County Water and

  Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. 122 pp.

Harlock Jackson Pty. Ltd., J. K. Blackshaw, and J. Marriott. 1995. Public Open Space and Dogs:

  a Design and Management Guide for Open Space Professionals and Government. Harlock

  Jackson. Victoria, Australia.

Home and Garden Information Center (HGIC). 1996. Residential Fertilizer Use Survey. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension. College Park, MD. Unpublished Surveys.

Lim, S. and V. Olivieri. 1982. Sources of Microorganisms in Urban Runoff. John Hopkins School of Public Health and Hygiene. Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project. Baltimore, MD. 140 pp.

Minnesota Center for Survey Research (MCSR). 1997. Lawn Care Survey-results and Technical Report Technical Report 97-9. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN. 60 pp.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). 1998. Four Mile Run. Web site address: www.nvpdc.state.va.us/4MileRun/4mr.htm

Pitt, R. 1998. Epidemiology and Stormwater Management. Stormwater Quality Management.

Swann, C. 1999. A Survey of Residential Nutrient Behaviors in the Chesapeake Bay. Widener Burrows, Inc. Chesapeake Research Consortium. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. 112 pp.

Syferd, E. 1995. Water Quality Consortium. Research Summary Report. Seattle, WA.

Trial, W. et al. 1993. Bacterial Source Tracking: Studies in an Urban Seattle Watershed. Puget Sound Notes. 30:1-3.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. US EPA, Office of Water. Washington, DC.

van der Wel, B. 1995. Dog Pollution. The Magazine of the Hydrological Society of South Australia. 2(1)1.

Table 2.