Here’s a link to an interesting article concerning animals recently treated with flea controlling chemicals. These treatments contain chemicals that have been found to be entering watercourses having harmful effects on fish as well as invertebrates.
Of great concern is the impact to aquatic invertebrates, when you take away the base of your food chain every organism is impacted. That means bird species, bat species, fish and mammals.
The message is clear, read the packaging and keep treated animals out of all water and watercourses for at least 48 hours (this is the figure stated by Frontline UK, other manufacturers may vary and their quoted times should be adhered to.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/pet-flea-treatment-chemicals-…/
Below is a link to a publication by Bug Life on neonicotinoids in water.
https://www.buglife.org.uk/…/QA%20Neonicotinoids%20in%20wat…
I am a dog owner and a member of ART. Having read this article i find it hard to believe the amount used on a dog would cause damage to this extent even in urban areas let alone in the Cairngorms. .
I must admit that I was quite surprised by this as well. However the evidence does seem irrefutable. As a dog owner who applies treatments to control fleas and ticks I will now be much more careful about allowing my dog near water relative to the treatment time. It seems to me that keeping your pet away from water for 48 hours is a very easy and beneficial thing to do. Given the potential damage that can occur as a result of not adhering to the guidance it is a chance not a worth taking.
I will read the bug-life report in full over the weekend. I like you adhere to Frontline instructions and keep the dog out of water for 48hrs. However at this stage i fail to accept that the amount used to treat a dog can cause so much damage in urban areas let alone in the highlands. I totally agree it is not a chance worth taking, but feel far more research is needed into the decline of invertebrates in our watercourses.You are obviously more qualified than i am in this field, but looking at the map it would appear to be more in rural areas suggesting it being bad practice by farmers.No doubt this debate could go on however nice to see ART are looking after interests.
The paper is an interesting read, the most pertinent pages to your thoughts are 29 and 30.