Happy Dogs in Nice Gardens By Tanya Kucak

From a dog's point of view, your backyard is a smorgasbord. Every dog
I've known has enjoyed finding new edible foodlike substances. To
make your garden safe for your dog to explore, you can eliminate the
most obvious dangers.

In the long run, it's more effective to fence off selected areas of
the garden than to cage the dog. Bear in mind that dogs are pack
animals who want to be wherever their people are, not isolated in a
far corner or left alone for too long.

Most dog owners know chocolate is toxic to dogs, but they may not
realize they need to avoid using cocoa mulch. Grapes (and raisins)
are also toxic to dogs, so keep dogs out of the vineyard. Emergency
vets point to snail bait (metaldehyde) and rat bait, as well as
antifreeze, as the most dangerous household poisons for dogs. Snail
bait based on iron phosphate, such as Sluggo, is nontoxic to dogs and
birds.

Another hazard is fertilizers, whether in open bags or freshly added
to the garden. Dogs are irresistibly attracted to the odor of manures
and organic amendments, but they can get diarrhea or worse when they
eat some. In my experience, it doesn't help to bury the organics a
few inches deep or mix them with soil. Alfalfa meal is a dog's idea
of a special treat. With access to the garden within a day or so
after amendments have been added, I've known a dog who feasted on the
whole shebang, including mulch, lava rock, and any chemicals that
were used (the proof came out over the next couple days).

If you can't keep your dog out of the garden for a couple days, use
compost tea as a liquid fertilizer. Once it's added to soil, its odor
is less likely to attract dogs. You can find recipes for either
fermented or aerated compost teas.

Dogs lick and taste everything, so if you use any pesticides, your
dog will get a dose. Eliminating all pesticides will make your garden
bird-friendly as well as dog-friendly. You need a variety of insects
to attract birds. Putting birds in charge of controlling insects
saves you money, improves your soundscape, is more sustainable, and
adds entertainment value.

The long list of poisonous plants includes oleander (don't use the
twigs as chew toys) and lily bulbs (for dogs who like to dig). If
you're putting in a new landscape or have a new puppy, consult a
handbook of poisonous plants to figure out which ones are worth the
(usually minor) risk. But remember that pesticides are a far greater
hazard and toxic at smaller dosages.

My idea of a dog-friendly garden doesn't include agaves with
needle-sharp leaves or grasses with sharp awns that can be inhaled or
embedded between toes (weedy foxtails are the biggest offenders;
native needlegrasses may pose a small risk). But dogs can peacefully
coexist with prickly bird-sheltering plants such as barberries or
gooseberries, and even thorny roses, in a well-designed garden.

The key to having a nice garden and a happy dog is training. Just as
you have to teach your dog how to behave indoors, you have to
establish the ground rules outdoors. Some dogs catch on right away;
others need consistent reminders.

A dog-friendly garden has play space, access to drinking water, a
designated "bathroom" area, and rules about where the dog is allowed.
Play space can be a small area for tug of war, a big meadow for
retrieving a frisbee or ball, or running paths that include
dog-sculpted tunnels in the shrubbery. To make cleanup easier, train
your dog to use an unplanted mulched area for elimination. You can
even buy or build a system for composting pet waste.

Each dog is different. Observe your dog to discover her favorite
sun/shade napping places, if she likes to dig or likes water, if she
likes to run the fence lines or sit by the gate to watch the world go
by, or has a favorite squirrel-watching post. Provide more of what
the dog likes so that when unsupervised, the dog will respect your
garden.

If your dog's idea of a good time is digging, you can provide a sand
pit and bury dog toys in it, instead of patching up your garden beds.
I've discouraged infrequent diggers by covering the soil with mulch.

If your dog overindulges in fallen apples or picks tomatoes on his
own, you may need to keep up with harvesting or fence off the edibles.

Tanya Kucak has lived with doberman pinschers, a cockerpoo, a golden
retriever, a saluki, a beagle, and a rat terrier (not all at the same
time!).


sidebar

Checklist for a dog-friendly garden

* eliminate all pesticides

* avoid cocoa mulch, grapes, oleander

* keep dangerous items inaccessible

* use compost teas to fertilize

* plan training time

* cage plants, not dogs

* offer napping places in sun and shade

* allow play space

* provide fresh water

* designate "bathroom" area and manage poop

* add diversions

Invasive Feces

Humans and countless other migratory animals have traveled long distances, and often transported other species within their migratory movements as they expand their territory. In evolutionary biology, species recede and advance in pulsing patterns as climatic changes occur more rapidly than their ability to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Natural storm events such as hurricanes and floods have been known to redistribute species thousands of miles, often as seeds and spores surviving in water. As we approach the sixth mass extinction of planet earth, and the dispersal of exotic species have been primarily attributed primarily to anthropogenic disturbances, is it logical to label certain highly adaptable species as “invasive”, “noxious” or “alien” when they may be the best suited for survival in some areas?
The use of the term invasive species was first coined by Charles Elton in 1953. Elton was highly influenced by a fellow Oxford student, Alexander Carr Saunders, secretary of the Eugenics Education Society, which promoted the study and practice of selective breeding in humans. Eugenics also suggested pseudo-scientific notions of racial and ethnic superiority and was crucial to Nazi scientists who justified genocide and human experimentation through this subject. Much of this prejudiced mentality towards living organisms migrated into the sub discipline of invasion biology. Terms such as genetic pollution, which are still used today, have the heritage of a hate-based philosophy, but recently has come to be associated with Genetically Modified Organisms and their spread into organic crops and wildlands and may pose the greatest threat of any “invasive species”.
This sub discipline is controversial within ecology and has far reaching ecological and economic results. Many of the species responsible for the highest loss of diversity, and covering the largest areas of earth with monocultures are factory farms and monoculture crops, most notably, corn, soy and wheat have displaced more native speies than any other organism. Some figures suggest that invasive species cost Americans $136 billion annually, about a third of which comes from herbicide use in conventional agriculture and raises the price of food. In Canada alone the herbicide industry grossed over 26 billion in 2004. Chemical corporations stand to lose billions if a more relaxed stance is taken towards invasive species, and governmental eradication programs could loose funding and lay off staff.
Recently there has been some research into the possible benefits of of some introduced species. Beneficial relationships between introduced species and native have often been overlooked and understated. They may provide forage for both native and domesticated animals, cover exposed soils preventing erosion or remove toxins and algae from human sources of pollution.

The corporate book review

A review of

Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World
To fully confess my sins, I did not but read through the introduction of this book, 30 minutes before the library closed in the small town where I was staying the night before I put it down. Partially by choice, partially by the fact that the library was about to close. But it piqued my curoiusity enough to keep reading while the library was open while hundreds of thousand of other books lay dormant so it was interesting to me. It seems to touch upon the same lines that "Let My People go Surfing" by Patagonia's founder. Preaching the eco-liberals the values and virtues of Natural Capitalism and how it will save the world and make money. This sounds like music to my ears, and I'm sure to many others. That's the American dream, live long and prosper, oh, wai, that was Spocks Vulcan Dreams. So is this a Utopian dream of a modern day Adam Smith, or a realistic view of globalisation and how we can all live better. The first few pages struck me, as Gary explained how he grew all this food for him and his friends at a New Alchemy Institute in a magical green house, but then was moved by the horrors of a Kraft Foods pavilion in Disneyworld and decided to try to compete, and infact, was able to outsell Kraft eventually. Now I am not one to judge at this point, my point is to raise a few questions about this type of approach, and it's consequences on the environment and society. A triple bottom line is great, but is it really a tripple bottom line if shareholders and economic growth trumps the latter two (social and environmental growth)? I do believe that one can make money, and heal the wounds of the people and the land, but my question is how much, and for long? What of the negative consequences of the some of the less desirable aspects of functioning and competing with the business as ussual crowd. Can you tip the scale, and from there are you just puting band aids on flesh woulds ?

Some of the main issues with global capitalism that concern me:

*using gasoline as the only means of trasporting the product

*lowering workers wages to save the company in times of crisis

*using plastics to store the food even if it can be recycled

*having the food pasteurized so it can be kept on shelves longer

*creating a product that can make more money than a biz as usual, but is not affordable to the masses