
To those folks who live where dogs are still welcome - enjoy; we hope it lasts.
Should we form a political party? Currently, responsible pet-owners are unrepresented. The Shooters look after the 'guns, dogs & 4WD' folks, but who represents us? Some food for thought on forming a party.
Tools to get us ahead:
OK - SUGGEST A NAME FOR OUR PARTY.
Thanks to Sian White for this post.
We were alerted to this farce on an Australian government website. Our comments follow, and we are taking this up with the publisher as a matter of urgency. With this sort of STUPID stuff being printed by our government,what hope is there for people who apply logical thought and use evidence-based facts?
Native animals see dogs as predators. The lasting scent left by dogs can easily scare small animals and birds away from their homes, often causing them to leave their young unprotected. Any evidence of dog scent affecting wildlife is overshadowed by that of humans, foxes and feral cats. Birds normally leave their young to get food; the nest is protection!
If dogs and other domestic pets have frightened native animals away from popular visitor areas, there will be no wildlife for other visitors to see. Is this honestly a claim that native animals are comfortable around PEOPLE , just not their dogs? Such non-sense is frightening. Popular visitor areas are typically overrun by ferals such as Indian Myna birds and Ibis.
FACT: The massive number of feral animals that arrived in the first hundred years of European settlement have permanently and drastically altered the Australian environment, introduced disease, caused land degradation and are implicated in the extinction of most of the 27 mammals in NSW.
Today, feral animal and plants are the second greatest international and national threat to biodiversity after habitat destruction such as land clearing. In some parts of NSW feral species are now the greatest threat. (NPA NSW).
We didn't receive an answer.
We reminded Council that they are only a regulatory authority and don't make the laws. In fact, at last years' event the rangers used their statutory discretion to let dogs play with their families in the playground - the mum's and bubs were NOT fined $330 for having a fun time together.
Thanks to the intervention of Independent Councillor Mark Novak, the misunderstanding has been resolved and we will be attending Dogs Day Out. Mark says "for 4 years I have frequently been a lone voice on this Council appealing for change. Following this Council election, the change agents must be in the majority." Mr. Novak is standing for mayor in the upcoming Council election; I support him and hope you can too.
Manly also let us know that they are also working to support pets on public transport, and wrote to the relevant ministry after the bus arrest in February. Even better, we're slowly gaining support for a Salty Dogs' Day Out on a section of the beach - just like a surf club event. We would love to do with working with Council.
Will you help us on the stall on Sunday 10th August?
Barking Mad has a draft ‘user-pays’ companion dog policy. This policy may best be explained by a comparison to your driver’s licence. A ‘normal’ licence requires a certain test and fee. To obtain further privileges such as driving a heavy vehicle or riding a motorcycle, additional training and financial contribution is required. In other words, you earn and pay for those privileges.
The ‘dog debate’, unlike many environmental issues, does have edges on both sides of a line. One edge is ‘no dogs as pets or companions in my town’ and the other is ‘dogs anywhere on a lead’. These edges give us a defined area in which to work to achieve our goal of a safe and pet-friendly society where companion animals and their utilitarian values are recognised and utilised. A middle ground.
We are conducting ongoing research from dog owners; in asking the question ‘Are restrictions on where you can take your dog fair?’ our response to date has been:
Yes 2%
Fair? We’re 2nd class citizens 25%
It MUST change 44%
No 29%
Community expectations and tolerance of dogs in urban Sydney has changed dramatically in the last thirty years. (Barking Mad notes a greater tolerance in other cities and states). No longer are we tolerant of the off-lead dog visiting us during the day or of dogs on our beaches. Barking Mad accepts that we have to work with the community expectations as they are today. (Take the dangerous dog provisions of the Act and substitute with dangerous youth and you may be enlightened at how our need to blame has shifted to the domestic dog).
A dog user pays policy would involve training for the dog and owner to a certain standard, an additional fee paid, and would provide an ID for dog and owner. Should the dog change owners, the ‘privilege’ would not transfer. Should the owner obtain another dog, the training process would have to be completed again for that guardian/dog partnership. The recent achievement of unifying the microchip database provides the technical capabilities for this system of identification to be implemented now.
The ID would provide regulators (rangers) with a level of confidence and mitigate the effects of dealing with the constant complainers each council encounters. An additional part of the ID would be requiring proof of vaccination (as is the case with any dog school) and also insurance (which is not yet required, but often in existence).
The Local Government Act has provisions to accommodate this user-pays system such that it does not discriminate against the economically disadvantaged. Barking Mad does not advocate for this system; rather we recognise that it may be a way to ‘earn back’ our rights as dog owners even if those rights were taken away unfairly. Our research shows that:
Please add your comments...
Barking Mad advocates that the potential risks of pets be considered within 'the weight of evidence (that) supports their health-enhancing potential' and 'costs that are vastly outweighed by potential health care savings.'
Remember that Pittwater is the council that refused to withdraw the penalty for 'dog on beach' when getting out of a boat (with minder) and going to a WATER ACCESS ONLY property. The magistrate made comments that made us smile; in other words - doesn't council have something better to do?
N.B.: We are not anti-ranger, which is why we lobby state and federal government more than the 700 plus local governments. 'Just doing my job' is often the plain truth in the matter. What many people don't know is that rangers have a code of conduct, local councils have a performance measure called 'reducing complaints' (a crazy notion for a profit-based business) and just because a person in uniform say something, they may not know the law any better than you.
Our legal challenges are not against the rangers who issue the fines in the first place, it's the Council management that insists on taking these cases before a magistrate. So many of our challenges have been dropped by local government just two days before the hearing when there has been 6-8 months to negotiate. OK for us, but really hard on the member who isn't aware of the absolute lack of common sense in these legal challenges and experiences extreme stress from the process. The Sudoku playing jurors prompted a brilliant response to the million dollar court case that was dropped due to their Sudoku playing: cap the lawyers pay at $188/day (like the jurors) and see how quickly cases get through the court.
Quote of the day: "lacking in substance". This means that your local government squanders your rates because they have someone who complains about you walking your dog on the beach in the morning and they HAVE to respond, because the law and common scents are, well, different.
We have not yet lost a challenge with members. The problem is we WANT to lose to take matters into the higher courts where precedent is set. Our next court date is with Warringah Council regarding jurisdiction on the beach; why not join us for the continuation and hopefully conclusion of a 'dog on beach' that has taken up 18 months of court time. Downing Centre Local court, 19th of Sept. in Sydney CBD. Email for details.
But we don't like 'facts', they don't make good media or create shock. Example: North Sydney has had the majority of parks off-leash for ten years, yet that hardly figured in the vigorous and often vicious and personal debate about the City of Sydney's (successful) plan to expand their off-leash parks. Please come to Parliament House between 11.30am and 2pm if you are able.