Comments on Freedom for Fleurieu Dogs

Over 500 people have now signed this petition. Some of the comments are as follows. I have not sought to edit them in any way. Nor have I removed any negative comments – there have been none. I have removed some comments in foreign languages because I have no idea what they mean.

Additional comments: At the end of this post, I have picked up in green some of the comments which I now learn were made in response to the Council’s limited consultation exercise last year. These ones are edited – they cover a multitude of other views about vehicles on beaches etc.

The Comments:

Latest Comments:

This is unfair on both the dogs and their owners – like people on the beach, dogs should be allowed to run freely, and I’m sure they aren’t going to cause any problems.  If they were previously allowed to run freely, why the sudden change?  Free the doggies!

Councils generally need a wake-up call.  Their purpose is to represent the interests of their constituents fairly and sensibly, not to place yet another layer of ill-conceived and often downright silly rules and regulations on an a population already overburdened by a Nanny state mentality.   The fact that some mother’s children are scared says more about the mother than dogs on the beach.  Four legs, good.  Two legs often really stupid…

Be civilised. I reside n Australia and we have many designated dog ie leash free beaches.These are very popular and work well.Become civilized and educated!

I can’t believe this! We like to stay down Yankalilla because our dogs can enjoy the beaches as much as we do. Surely this ban will affect potential tourist stays?

Shared beach time with dogs is a reasonable (and joyous) outcome observed by Councils across Adelaide.  I suggest that Councillors visit the very happy, busy, dog inhabited Henley/grange beaches on a Busy Saturday morning- clear evidence that people and free roaming (under effective control) dogs co- habit well.  Dogs need to run, socialize and swim freely.  Do not take this opportunity from dogs and their owners.  For what justifiable reason?

Dogs should be able to run like they are meant to. No way could people run enough to provide sufficient exercise for these animals..

Absolutely.  Just why has this happened?  Dogs love the beach…….

We are sooo overregulated in the WRONG things in this country.  Walking off-leash with my dogs is a life-long dream for me and we CANNOT decrease the number of the these areas for those lucky enough to live near one.   These promotes mental health and well being for not only the owners but their beloved pets as well.

It’s our feckless bureaucratic eejits that should be kept on a leash. Many of them also need muzzling. If they have nothing better to do than this they should be unemployed. Must go now, my B.S. filter needs cleaning.

Dogs and humans have always walked together and this is an attack on the freedom of both to enjoy life.

I have friends who are being affected by this new by-law.

Whats the point of (to a dog) of a sedate stroll.A dog wants to run and splash and chase other dogs.

I have lived on Sampson road for 23 years and have taken my border collie to the beach many a time and let her have a run and NEVER had an issue, most times there have been other people with their dogs doing the same thing. As long as we all respect each other and the environment. I can’t see the problem.

We have by-laws for everything now.m Where is the reasonableness.

The Council Strikes Back!

As I have previously noted, I am not a regular petitioner. In fact, my petition on change.org Freedom for Fleurieu Dogs is the first and only time I have initiated a petition on a matter of public interest, or indeed anything else. I am told by change.org that 85% of petitions never even reach 50 supporters,  but since my petition was launched earlier this week, it has already found over 500 supporters. If you have not supported it, but would like to do so; please do so.

The response of the Chief Executive of Yankalilla District Council was initially to show interest in the petition[1], but this interest now appears to have somewhat waned[2].

But what has happened, since the launch of the petition, is that approximately 5:50 PM on Wednesday I was visited by an officer of the Council, who personally served on me an Expiation Notice[3] alleging that that Perdita was “wandering at large” on the beach on 5th January.

It is a surprising document, because it

Local Government Harm

I wonder if Yankalilla District Council took any account of the following evidence from the Animal Welfare League before attempting to discourage dog ownership by stopping their freedom of exercise:

Pets as Social Enablers

A study by the University of Western Australia’s School of Population Health found that more than 50% of dog owners and 40% of pet owners in general meet people in their neighbourhood as a result of their pet, and more than 80% of dog owners talk to other people when out walking their dogs2,3. These social bridges are referred to as ‘the glue that holds society together’, also known as social capital. The building of social capital is known to have positive effects on the health and economic viability of a society.

Cardiovascular Health

The positive impact of pets on cardiovascular health was first recognised in the early 1980s when a study found that pet owners were much less likely to die in the 12 months following a heart attack than non-pet owners4. The results were then replicated in the mid 1990s. It is this specific area of research the made the medical community take notice of the ‘pets are good for you’ premise.

Have your Say, They Say

Happily, Yankalilla District Council have a website with a “Have Your Say” facility.

So I have tried it. The email I got back says:

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to visit Your Say Yankalilla and submitting your story.