Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They will have been initially released (by pet owners when they got too big to be kept), but I think they are feral and breeding now. This link suggests that whist at the limit of their range, they can survive and even thrive in parts of the UK, although, as I said, not being 'native' 

 https://www.terrapins.co.uk/general-information/terrapins-in-the-wild/#:~:text=Terrapins thrive in brackish water,water mixes with fresh water.

51 minutes ago, rjsmall said:

The terrapins have been there for many years. I remember looking at them sunning themselves on the rocks when my daughter was small enough to go to the infants playground and that is at least seven years ago.

This. First spotted several of them around 15 years ago and they were there before that.

HP

Edited by hpsaucey
7 minutes ago, Kirsty7 said:

Nevertheless it is illegal to dump terrapins in the wild. They can introduce diseases and eat wild frogspawn, dragonfly, fish and even ducklings... 

Look out! Abandoned terrapins about | The Independent | The Independent

The park keepers used to be aware of them (assume they still are) so perhaps worth talking to them about your concerns?

15 hours ago, ydrmdy said:

I think you are right, but does anyone agree they are turtles, not terrapins?

Technically, terrapins are a type of turtle...

They've been around for years. Occasionally, they've been pulled out of Dulwich Park ponds as well. No idea if they're actually breeding or if it's always just a couple of pets that have been dumped.

On 18/04/2023 at 18:00, Kirsty7 said:

Nevertheless it is illegal to dump terrapins in the wild. They can introduce diseases and eat wild frogspawn, dragonfly, fish and even ducklings... 

Look out! Abandoned terrapins about | The Independent | The Independent

Would be nice if they could eat the pigeons instead! 

Edited by alexander2022

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...