Guard Dog off Duty

Eedra, proprietor of Barking Mad Equity for Pet Owners, has had to go away due to prolonged and unrelenting threats to her health, accommodation and livelihood by the man (and his agents) who defrauded her of property, superannuation and business back in 2004. At least Pema can laugh about it - don't we love our dogs' lives!

Therefore, the lobbying work of Barking Mad is suspended.  Individual cases for members will be reassigned as required. Court cases will be postponed as required.

Pema is now in a temporary home and doing great work with people - still.  Soon, she wll be reunited with me!

Eedra hopes to be able to return - when the legal system gets an injection of justice, when thugs work both ways or when an advocate comes along with enough guts and authority to say ENOUGH!  Or when karma reaches the white-collar criminal.

Check out past issues of the Bite for information on work Barking Mad has done.  And yes, we're still going Warringah for the Ultra Vires case.


BARKING MAD- EQUITY FOR PET OWNERS
PO Box 310, Woy Woy NSW 2256
skype: barking-mad
_______________________________­­____
Your membership of Barking Mad helped create a safe and pet-friendly society.
Make your donation now if you wish to help clear the debt:  Bendigo Bank; Barking Mad, BSB: 633-000, Account: 128910064

BARKING MAD IS AVAILABLE - TAKE IT OVER  - FOR DOGS' SAKE

Good News for Renters with Pets

Is the often used 'no pets without permission' legally binding?

Did you know there is no such clause in legislation in NSW for residential rentals (excluding Strata Schemes)? That's right. It is a MADE UP CLAUSE - made up by the real estate institute.

• The law requires a tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and not to cause a nuisance or annoyance.
• The law requires the landlord not to interfere with your reasonable peace, comfort or privacy.
  

If you have an agent or landlord telling you not to smoke inside, or not to have your pet, tell them they are contracting out and contact Barking Mad right away. If you are a good tenant, we can help.

Please see the members area for how to get the rental agreement in the legislation, not the made up one.

by-laws: keep the dog!

The NSW CTTT Strata Division ruled in favour of keeping 'Oscar' at a unit in Coogee. It was a tricky case where the body corporate twice refused 'permission' to keep a dog and then attempted to change the by-laws during the dispute to block our members' application.

The lesson to responsible pet owners is clear. Persist, do not surrender.

The Tribunal held that the refusal was not reasonable. It clearly ordered that just because there had 'never' been pets, and the refusal of pets has stood for decades, that was not a good enough reason to say NO PETS. In granting the owners' permission, common-sense orders were also made to appease the opposition such as entering or leaving the Strata by the most direct route and cleaning up as required in the common areas.

This is a significant ruling in NSW and we need to keep getting these issues before the tribunal and courts if we are going to accommodate our pets as our homes get smaller and our communities more densely populated. Members page on renting with pets and pets in strata. Read this judgment here.

Plagiarism 101 & Renting with Pets

This post is dedicated to an as-yet unnamed organisation that has given us another legal argument to help remove the 'no-pets' clause that exists for renters in NSW but not in Victoria.

I've been admitted to law school. But I'm having an ethical dilemma. The Course Information Guide states that "One of the most fundamental qualities of a lawyer is honesty." This is not a joke. It then goes on to back this up with two examples - one from 2004 and one from 2007 where lawyers were reprimanded for plagiarism. There is one solicitor for every 500 people in Australia; citing 2 reprimands does not do much to support the premise that a quality, let alone a fundamental quality of a lawyer is honesty. Or am I being too cynical? If so, I refer to the Bush Lawyer Rules, plagiarised from Dr. Greg Ogle and edited by me. The Bush Lawyer

• is not a lawyer
• reserves the right to abuse the next person who says "have you thought about being a lawyer"
• used to be an idealist, but has been made cynical by the legal system
• thinks "The Castle" is a more important legal source than the rules of the court
• learns most tricks from the other side or by mimicking "normal" legal practice
• works till the wee small hours because there are better things to do in daytime
• can usually be paid with "beers-in-lieu".
  

Like every legal practitioner, the bush lawyer has ethical standards and rules to work by. These rules are, inter alia:

• pleadings should be read sober (but affidavits should only be written while drinking Chardonnay)
• pleadings can be written when drunk, but should be checked in the morning
• bush lawyer pleadings should contain political arguments - just to annoy the other side
• the form of pleadings can and should be plagiarised from other cases
• bush lawyer pleadings should always be longer than those from the other side
• only use words like "with respect" and "with the greatest respect" in parody, or in the pub afterwards
• do not refer to the other side's lawyer as my' friend' - they're not
  

Rider

• always be suspicious of lawyers on your side - they have their own constraints, and you know your case better
• never accept that lawyers on the other side are simply following instructions - they are an active part of chilling your right to free speech
• never send a one-page letter to the other side, it is unsporting
• try to include at least one piece of Latin in any correspondence, it is much more credible than relying on the "vibe of the constitution" (but about as meaningless).

Quotes of Note or Nonsense

A few quotes of note.

From SMH Heckler: "This Government needs to concentrate on what they were elected to do - they should put more effort into providing services and spend less time imposing draconian penalties for minor, harmless breaches of outdated laws. (Our Note: We emphasise HARMLESS and relate it to a $330 fine for walking your dog on an empty beach at 7.30am in Sydney).

From The Castle movie:
Federal court judge: And what law are you basing this argument on?
Darryl Kerrigan: The law of bloody common sense!

"It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission."
"If it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. It's much easier to apologise than it is to get permission."
One of my heroines, a fellow engineer and a co-worker at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) for one amazing year before she died at age 85 in 1992. - Grace Murray Hopper. For several years I was the only female hardware engineer for DEC in Australia - I left in favour of corporate environmental management when things started to go the way of desktop, PC computing. (Oceancare link, computer recycling link, bush walking link)

From the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing 1994: "When Admiral Grace Murray Hopper died, the world lost an inspiration to women and scientists everywhere. Her outstanding contributions to computer science benefited academia, industry, and the military." I lost an inspiration too, but of course her brilliance and brazenness (meaning she was not a lady-in-waiting) continue to inspire me. She believed that the decisions of the past were not the best method to choose the way forward. How novel!

Last week I worked on a case to keep pets in a NSW Strata. The owner's corporation objection to the application was based solely on the premise that the past predicts the future. How annoying...but none-the-less we achieved pets in strata, a success no doubt aided by such a illogical argument.

Another win in court

Remember when we got dragged of the bus and arrested by three pushy cops who were called by the State Transit Officers who didn't even know the regulations they are suppose to enforce?
Daily Telegraphy Story

State Transit pursued their prosecution of me even after the Transport Minister confirmed the regulations. What a WASTE of time and court resources. And they lost, their case was dismissed. Fools? Thugs in uniform? Illiterate? A transit authority that wants LESS passengers on their services in off-peak periods? Back to fools.

READ THE APOLOGY FROM THE TRANSPORT MINISTER, WRITTEN IN APRIL 2008 - IT DIDN'T STOP THEM FROM PROSECUTING.

Our most recent day in court

Bias: a personal view that has the tendency to interfere with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced or objective. Bias is not something the general public expects from a judge - or do we?

What a fascinating day! With a full court room waiting for more than 30 minutes past the scheduled start time, a judge walking in late without so much as an apology, a judge with a 'good' reputation, but known to be 'grumpy', a judge with a strong Labor past, we were in for a day of surprises - and a good display of 'grumpy' and 'past'.

If you actually get to have your matter heard on the day it is scheduled, you're lucky (a bit like our hospitals perhaps?) So in that way we were lucky. First up was a team of 4 lawyers and barristers getting their matter adjourned until tomorrow. Took a few minutes and probably cost the clients $5000 combined. As a criminal matter, those clients legal costs may well be paid by the tax-payer!

What would YOU do with $5000? These guys charge for a full day in court, even if the entire day was spent waiting. Can we charge our doctors for the hours we wait?

We've been waiting for this day for nearly two years; since our legal assembly on Long Reef Beach back in May 2007. Without getting technical, our system of government invites and respects protests and criticism (think the Opposition). Even without a bill-of-rights, this expression is long established in case law and even statute. The Right of Peaceful Assembly by R.M. Hope QC.

Barking Mad conducts our assemblies legally - they are 'authorised' by law which means with permission of the commissioner of police. This allows us to express an opinion peacefully, without menace. However, as we've said and continue to say, Warringah has been successfully menacing with us for quite some time.

If an authorised public assembly is held in the way it was approved by the Commissioner, a person is not guilty of any offence relating to participating in an unlawful assembly . . .if done for the purpose of participation. Reference.

PS: 14-April-09 The cost-effectiveness of being a criminal. Our District Court appeal was dismissed so we're off, two years after having a dog on a beach, to the next court up.

And, what everyone has asked about this day in court: It was Judge Finnane who showed us an amazing display of judicial intelligence (or some other term that makes it ok for judges to show what 'normal people' would call bias).

After judgment and before the sentencing, for the purpose of leniency, I was explaining my extensive environmental contributions in the fields of organic waste, composting, corporate environmental management and computer recycling . But I was interrupted with the rhetorical question: HOW CAN YOU BE FOR DOGS IF YOU ARE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST - DOGS DEFECATE, DOGS BITE. And I said, we defecate too, every day if it's a good day! (And I'm not sure how you eat your steak, but I like to bite mine). We await the transcript. We point you the reader to all about dog poo...

Read the continuing story and our very exciting next action on the members web.

New poster and membership form

Download our brochure and membership form and let your friends know that we CAN create pet-friendly communities.

My dog, my pet, my property, my responsibility - paws off

We work for the rights of responsible pet owners to live a normal life.

We've had a lively conversation here about public access rights for pets on PUBLIC transport.

Let's look at renting with pets.

In Australia, there are commonly used tenancy agreements claiming to be prepared in accordance with tenancy law. From my research, I can't ever see this premise being tested.

In NSW, these agreements state that an animal or bird can not be kept at the premises UNLESS PERMISSION IS OBTAINED. (No such clause is in the legislation). Think about this. The law gives the tenant full right of access to the property as long as they pay rent, act legally and behave.

Dogs are chattel - full stop. In other words, they are no different than a handbag, briefcase or a pair of shoes. So why are renters are being told to ASK and OBTAIN PERMISSION to live with their dog or cat? Legally, it is the same as having to ask if we can have a pink handbag with matching pink shoes in the home we are renting.

What's chattel? Chattel is an item of personal property which is movable. It can be bought, owned, sold and stolen. The dog or cat is owned in law by its owner or politically correctly, its guardian. Because Barking Mad works with responsible pet owners, we will presume that we all legally own our pets meaning we register them as required by our local regulatory authority.

SO HOW CAN A RENTAL AGREEMENT REQUIRE YOU TO OBTAIN PERMISSION TO HAVE A DOG - OR, THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT, A PINK HANDBAG AT YOUR HOME?

I ask for your thoughts - and please consider the following:

• Residential tenancy laws hold the tenant liable for damages they cause - from pets, kids, parties, accidents or negligence.
• Dog laws hold the owner responsible for actions of a dog.
• Nuisance laws cover bad bahaviour, which may include a barking dog.
• Animal protection laws cover cruel pet behaviour, such as keeping too many animals or not providing adequate care. (Isn't is cruel to deny housing to a responsible pet owner?)
• Strata laws require a 'good reason' to deny keeping a pet. An example of a good reason would be a strata complex for people with asthma where someone wants to keep a cat.
• Rental laws do not have this 'good reason' logical clause.
  

Column8 Dog Train - Sydney Morning Herald

Friday 19 Dec:

"State Rail have these large glossy posters at most stations stating the rules," reports John Blackhawk, of Umina Beach. "One rule states 'No pets not allowed'. I emailed, asking if we'd all been breaking the law by not travelling with our dogs, cats, axolotls etc. They asked for clarification - was it me who was travelling with a pet, or had I seen others doing so? I pointed out it was a humorous attempt at pointing out their double negative, and I looked forward to taking my groodle to work on the train. The posters remain unchanged. But I believe it is legal to travel on trains, buses and ferries if your pet is 'under control' anyway. It is, isn't it?" We're not sure. Guide dogs have always been OK, but as for groodles …

Today 22 Dec:
"I got fined for being on 'railway property' with my dog," writes Eedra Zey (Column 8, Friday). "I have in writing from RailCorp that a level crossing is railway property. Therefore, I cannot cross from home to the shops at Woy Woy with my dog without committing an offence."

Barking Mad comments: We look to Column 8 (Column8?) to show us the rules of punctuation,"(_).**

Chicago!

Hasn't Chicago (and surrounds) been in the news? USA President Elect Obama aside, Chicago city ran a high school art contest TO CREATE CITY-WIDE AWARENESS OF DOG-FRIENDLY CHICAGO. Ok, we love it, see previous post. Here is the winner - to be displayed on 1.3 million vehicle parking stickers.

AND, Michigan car insurer Progressive offers Pet Injury Coverage if your dog or cat is injured in a car accident - regardless of fault! As an ex-yank, I can say that ANYTHING offered 'regardless of fault' is indeed progressive.

The Detroit News reported Auto insurers add pet policies. Stating the bleeding obvious:

• The coverage reflects what pet owners have known for years and some corporations are just now realising: The bonds run deep with fluffy friends.
  
• It's an opportunity to provide a new coverage that right for the market.
• The market is huge with 2 million dogs and 2.5 million cats.
• Customers love their cats and dogs.

Our comments - DUH! Most domestic pets in Australia carry $10 MILLION liability insurance with your home contents policy (check with your insurer). Common law clearly puts pets as chattel; yep, same as a handbag. This is an interesting angle when dealing with legal stuff. I digress: chattel means no innate rights - that's why Barking Mad is about pet Owners, not dogs or cats, or horses.

Animal rights organisations state their preference clearly in their name - rights for animals meaning a reform of common law/chattel/pet. Barking Mad has an interesting case on foot as a dog was present in a legal assembly (our right of political expression), but the owner was fined for dog in prohibited space. If the dog is chattel (so too a banner, or a loud-speaker), necessary for political expression then how can its owner be fined under council by-laws?

Barking Mad contacted both AAMI and NRMA insurance asking them to promote a product (pet liability insurance) that they currently offered. Both declined. What are they missing? With 2 out of 3 homes with pets, when will they switch on? I recall working with a major industry around the Sydney Olympic Site (and time) to install water tanks. They had a mega-huge flat surface; a perfect catchment with drainage in place. They thought I was nuts. Need I say more?

Doctor's Orders - Dog is Good

Remember when our national broadcaster the ABC generously offered two VIP tickets to Barking Mad members with assistance dogs to the outdoor opera back in March this year? And then they were denied entry - something to do with multiple agencies being the ABC, Opera Australia and the Opera House Trust. The first two accommodated their guests, and the later did not, and refused to contact the first two to get this sorted. The result: DRAMA !

And now a complaint of disability discrimination after an offer to show the video claiming ''only guide dogs''' was refused by the Opera House CEO. Now that a formal complaint has been lodged, what did Sydney Opera House do with this complaint? They submitted 160 pages saying they did the right thing; the big bank strategy. And finally, they asked to see the video which we have put on YouTube. In their 160 pages, they claim to be experts about assistance dogs and people with disability. This is timely with the International Day of People with Disability this week, the 3rd of December. So we thought we would offer Richard Evans, CEO of Sydney Opera House, a man with a bigger budget than ..... a quiz on disabilities and assistance animals. This is one of the questions:

The 16 photos above are of dogs and the dog’s main carer/guardian. All are legitimate photos taken recently. 9 of these photos are of assistance dogs with the person they provide assistance to (a person with a disability). All of the assistance dogs in these photos are ‘working’ (on-duty, not resting) at the time the image was taken.

Please circle or put a cross in the 9 images where Sydney Opera House would allow dogs on site because they are assistance animals as defined by the DDA.

We will let you know how we go!

It's Ba ack! And it's NOTA Loophole

Remember the bus arrest? Well, it's back. The NSW Police realised they could not uphold a conviction, but that logical approach has not spread to the State Transit Authority. In fact, we have recent correspondence from our big-salaried Chief Executive of Sydney Buses (Safe, Clean & Convenient, Peter Rowley) stating that the issue of the fines has been reviewed and he is satisfied that they were correctly issued. Guess we'll see as the hearing is tomorrow at Ryde Local Court.

Has he read the legislation/regulations? Well, here it is, straight from the NSW Govt. website; Section 52 (1) A passenger must not take into or on any public passenger vehicle any dog, cat, bird or other animal: (b) in the case of a bus or ferry - except with the permission of,and in the manner permitted by, the driver of the bus or the ferry master.

Eedra Zey walks onto the uncrowded L20 bus at Ryde going to the city. She is obviously with a dog as Pema the border collie is by her side, on-lead. Driver asked destination, Eedra replies, driver says $4, Eedra provides a $20 note and apologises for not having the correct change, driver gives Eedra ticket and change. Eedra sits in the front of the bus and Pema is under the seat, virtually invisible. All is well.

Transit blokes board for routine ticket check. Eedra shows ticket, guys behind her do a dash, transit blokes go towards the back of the bus, but then 'their stop' comes up and they have to move on. Bloke Anal says to bloke Real, what about the dog? Real says to Anal what about it, she has a ticket. And the rest is dramatic history of which we have some very interesting video!

Responsible pet owners will make appropriate decisions about where and when to take their pet into public space. Many of us will even have our dogs 'public access trained' to earn back our privileges. It's time for common scents!

Dogs on! Sydney Northern Beaches

OUR ELECTION LOBBYING IS PAYING OFF:
COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, 14th October. Notice of Motion No 5/2008

Equitable Access to Community Space for Unleashed Dog Walking and to Beaches for Swimming, Submitted by: Cr Vincent De Luca OAM

That this Council resolves to:

• Note that 42% of Warringah’s residents own a dog.
• Note that currently there are no swimming areas available for dogs in the Warringah Council area.
• That Council officers conduct public consultation with Barking Mad Australia and members of the community as to options for unleashed dog walking and access to beaches for dog swimming and furnish a report to Council within three months regarding results of public consultation and options available.
  

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT: (Must include full name and address to count).

CLICK TO SEND your support to Barking Mad
CLICK TO SEND an email to The Mayor

Barking Mad is ready with a consultation plan and questions, the beach areas we want and the case-law to take away any doubt that Warringah Council has the legislative instrument & imperative to make this happen without the approval of 13 other State agencies.

BARKING MAD is funded by responsible pet owners and carers. If you support what we do for you, please MAKE A DONATION.

Dissenting View and (not) endangered species

I received a very interesting response in regards to the previous post. I am always grateful to people who take the time to write their dissenting view, and even more so when they do it politely and with facts.

First, I must clarify that our assembly at Long Reef Beach in May 2007 said nothing about that area becoming a dog-friendly beach. It was about the requirement of council to provide equitable access to resources for all their residents. The beach is a resource and 40% of Warringah residents have dogs.

Secondly, as I researched the dissenting view offered to, I found errors of fact. Had it been based in fact, it would most certainly been something that we would have to consider and accommodate. HOWEVER, I am willing to be shown that I am in error, and that's why Barking Mad, as a professional lobby association, welcomes those with a dissenting view. Our only requirement is that you can argue your point without arguing people out of a room! But please come to us with research and facts - it will help us create a safe and pet-friendly community that both pet owners/lovers and pet haters can cope with.

HERE IS THE COMMENT WE RECEIVED:
While we agree that you and your dog have rights, the endangered species of birds in the wildlife refuge at one end of the beach and the marine sanctuary at the other are incompatible with the rights of you and your dog.

Please be aware that birds will not nest anywhere, or will abandon existing nests, that they can detect dogs have been near. They are endangered, your dog is not.

The marine reserve is home to endangered little penguins who are also very sensitive to the presence of dogs. Already there have been attacks by dogs whose owners are sure that their dog would not do something like this. The doggy ban is there for a reason. C.C,

HERE IS MY RESPONSE AFTER RESEARCHING 'endangered little penguins'.
In my quest for facts, I have researched your assertion that “marine reserve is home to endangered little penguins” and have found it to have no basis in fact. If you can show me otherwise, I would appreciate it.

There are NO endangered or critically endangered penguins in Australia. There are three species that are vulnerable, which does not include the little fairy. There is one colony of penguins that are an endangered population, and that is at Manly.

AND MY INITIAL RESPONSE (edited for length) BEFORE RESEARCHING THE PENGUIN CLAIM:

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, but I must say au contraire and ask for your qualifications. I have an environmental science background.

The doggie ban is for a reason and it’s revenue raising. Shorebird nesting areas are not related to this specific ban. Knowing your shorebirds and their nesting cycle AND their threats may lead you to a more informed response. The constitution, our federation and the High Court are there for reasons too. Think Aboriginal citizenship, Mabo, maybe even suffragists. Barking Mad supports legislation that protects shorebird nesting areas.

Of course, dogs off leash are a threat to little penguins – but NOT during the day. Also, these are seasonal, albeit a long season, and have must greater risks than dogs.

The other reason for dog bans is that it is much EASIER to get the dog owner than the parent whose youth drinks underage, drives like an idiot, swears constantly in public, likes to graffiti things etc. How many offenses are related to litter – and we all see a LOT more non-poo litter like drink bottles and cigarette butts. How about enforcing the alcohol free zones?

Endangered? We humans are the most endangered with the senseless way we interfere instead of integrate with our surroundings. Think cars and all they have done to our world, think import/export, shipping, mining. Sorry, my dog is down on the list and she is also a 24 x 7 health care worker – maybe even to your parent at a home that you visit once a week. She visits twice a week at least, and provides respite to the under-payed aged care workers as well. The benefits rein.

And just to clarify, my dog does not have rights as she is chattel. People have rights. A lot of animal welfare people want non-human animals to have rights – there is an argument for and against it, of course.

Ultra vires, meaning: Warringah drop dog poo on our Federal Constitution

Manly Daily Article ~~ Barking Mad Media Release (delayed, went sailing & have a Newcastle event Sunday) ~~ Ultra vires definition
Wow, this is hard. How do I explain to you why this lower court judgment favouring Warringah Council is but a drop of water in a bucket, on the wrong field, on the wrong issue? (Trying not to use military analogies...). How do I explain it is yet another example of small-government-syndrome which implies a right to act independently of the principles of our federation?

How to I explain to anyone new to Barking Mad that we are not about dogs or pets, but about our access as pet-owners to a fair-share of public and living space? (Or how CUTE that photo of Pema is...)

And, how do I explain our federal Constitution? (Big sigh). Or how our signing of an international treaty, in this case the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) gives regulatory power to the Federal government OVER State government, when generally, our Constitution is prohibited from such power?

Attempt #1:

• When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. (Section 109 Inconsistency of laws).
• So, let's take that as an admission that this inconsistency can and does exist. When it does, it's not OK for Warringah Council to act beyond the power of their authority.
• Because, as stated in the first point, the Commonwealth law prevails.

What is this Commonwealth law that we accuse Warringah Council of shitting upon? In addition to our implied right to political expression, we have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which includes Article 21:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Well, our assembly never interfered with these conditions, nor did Warringah argue that we did. (Probably because they don't see Constitutional law applicable to their small-government-syndrome).

In summary we won. After 18 months of winning cases assisting our members in 'baby courts', we finally have one we can appeal to a jurisdiction that sets precedent. As this is a constitutional issue, we are looking at our options in the higher courts. NOW WE ARE BARKING UP THE RIGHT TREE. Thank you Warringah. We are THRILLED you read our website and blog and look forward to working with you from the same side of the table.

(PS: Our newly elected Warringah Councillors will table a Notice of Motion for equitable access to off leash walking areas and beaches at the first meeting of Council in late October.)

Dog is my witness

A dog nicknamed Scooby has become the first animal in the world to appear as a witness in a murder trial. The animal is believed to have been with his 59-year-old owner when she was found hanging from the ceiling of her Paris flat. (source: Ananova.com, image doglaw)

Police believe it was suicide but her family demanded a murder investigation. During a preliminary hearing the pet was led into the witness box by a vet to see how it reacted to a suspect. It is said to have "barked furiously". The aim was to decide if there was sufficient evidence to launch a full murder inquiry. The judge praised the animal for his "exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance".

This is no surprise for many of us pet owners; we know they are excellent judges of character and they don't need 400 years of legal texts to make their decision!

Beach Dog

Need some fun - too much lobbying with NSW Local Government Elections, change in NSW State Ministry, WA change of government and new Federal Opposition. LET'S GO WALKIES.

The purpose of the proposed assembly:

• Call attention to the requirement of Newcastle Council by way of the Local Government Act to provide adequate, equitable and appropriate services to the community, and that dog-friendly beach access for 40% of ratepayers with dogs is a service that is not now being adequately provided.
• Promote the integration of responsible dog owners in society.
• Demonstrate the health and fitness aspects of exercising on beaches for humans and supervised dogs.
• Call attention to the hierarchy of governance, Local Government’s lack of a Crown to govern in its own right.
• Promote peaceful political expression as an implied right in the constitution.
• Invite Newcastle Council to respect this constitutional right without the need to undermine it by touting council by-laws.

Assembly invitations, details and conditions here.

Irony: What's wrong with this picture?

Barking Mad welcomes the CCAC. They "take a fresh approach to solving animal management issues", argue against 'quick-fixes' and advocate using high quality evidence based information. We LOVE using facts instead of political point-scoring! However, we can not tolerate double standards.

This lovely photo, found at 'about us' on the Centre for Companion Animals in the Community website depicts a normal day-to-day action of many carers for children, yet in NSW it is "against the law". Why? Well, pooch is just too close to a child's play area, and yes, the fine is at least $330.

This is a stupid law; it discriminates against the largest demographic of dog owners - families with children. Are we being trite? No way. Dogs are shown in television shows and advertising on the beach, yet Sydney councils claim they have a right to declare 'no dogs on beaches', Lotto used a border collie on a beach pushing a lotto ball to advertise our gambling culture. It goes on and on. Dogs are used in real estate and home furnishings advertising, yet try to rent with a pet and see how you are treated. Take you dog to an open house and see if you are welcome inside! The value of a companion dog is not in marketing or advertising; the value is to the loving owners and a community that experiences their loyalty and companionship. We need this value to be recognised in policy so we don't get stupid laws that say Mum can't can't toddler and dog to the local park.

Killing Good Aussie Dogs - a whinge.

Is Barking Mad next? To those who support Barking Mad with your free membership or your $25/$40 memberships, I thank you. To the three million other dog owners, to the hundreds of people at Sydney dog parks who think Barking Mad is great, but haven't joined, to the vets and big pet shops that won't join as a member, why?

WHY? The cost of owning a dog is $500 - $1000 a year. A bag of dog chow costs more than a membership to the lobby group challenging stupid laws that say no dogs on beaches, no dogs in rentals, etc. Yet, you won't join. You want to get your dog park in your area, but don't see that each time you win a campaign in your area, no precedent is set. Some other area will be doing the exact fight at the same time with no sharing of resources. One more dog beach might satisfy the big dog owners, but terrify some small dog owners because of the concentration of dogs in just one area. One area is not ok - 30 - 40% is because that's how many ratepayers have dogs. We asked each member to sign up five others - only the member in the Tweed who came up with the idea did such. That's it. It's not enough. We need 10,000 members - paid or surveyed, to get our amendments up. I need a P.A. or I'll be back in the hospital with stress. I would like an income.

I'm called constantly to help people present a strategy for a pet-friendly workplace, or to mitigate a dispute with a neighbour, or to help change by-laws in a unit. I offer this service as a consultant and that's the end. They won't even join as a member, let alone pay for a service or even transport costs. They want it for free but won't work to find a sponsor for us. And by the way, we haven't lost ONE legal matter we have worked on with members yet.

Today I received a PhD survey about pet ownership with lots of questions about registration, microchipping, dog health and cost. Then bang - it asked about how you think you will be affected when your dog dies. WELL somewhere around 25% - 35% of dog owners won't see that day because THEY WILL SURRENDER THE DOG FIRST. Why? Because they don't have a car and can't use public transport with dog, because they do have a car and its too expensive to drive to the only good dog park, because they leave dog at home when cafe owner says dog can't even join them at an outdoor table, because they move to a unit that says no pets, they buy a pet friendy unit that then changes the by-laws, the decide to travel around the country and can't find accommodation that welcomes their dog. It's Barking Mad!

We HAVE a compromise position - train dog and guardian to a high standard and give US more access. My tail is between my legs and I am sad, and tired. I'm working on educating NSW transit authorities who continue to refer to the 'no pets on transport' in the regulation, when the Director General changed that in 2002! Only two people have signed up to help in our upcoming events. We have local government working to submit the user-pays dog license to the local government conference. Guys, I don't walk on water. This organisation needs help to survive.