I agree with the the well reasoned and scientifically supported facts of ernie1. I am really dismayed by the many ad hominem attacks flung around like caged monkey scat. But it got me to thinking about the evolution of science, medicine and cultural anthropology in the area of human wastes. In some parts of the world people like to go off into the bush and relieve themselves even when there are sanitary facilities available. This is very much a cultural difference and it is difficult to change how people are "used" to doing things. I dont think anybody disputes that it is not civilized nor healthy for human beings to pee or defecate in populated areas both for reasons of health as well as smell. And our disgust at happening upon errant human defecation in situ or in progress is irregardless of possible wildlife defecation in the same area. Culturally we differentiate between the two. The proximity of dogs and cats to humans present a higher risk in the transmission of disease (zoonosis) by their raw wastes. And within the US we differ socially in our tolerance of the site and smell of animal dung. So farmers are probably not going to be bothered by dog dung while city folk just go ballistic by the sight or smell of it on the cityscape. It is why signs are posted "curb your dog" meaning dont let them take a dump on the sidewalk and it is much easier to walk a dog down the middle of the road at a CG than in a city.
So back to the CG where we have a mix of people from farm/country, the city and everything in between converge with different tolerances, preferences, expectations and experiences. It doesnt make anyone wrong or right. No need for attacks.
