
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...