Not happy, Nigel!

Yankalilla have released their Resident Satisfaction Survey. 75 pages of what is largely self-conglatulatory pap. But turn to page 53 and you get to some meat: only 7% of residents are satisfied with Council handling of animal management issues generally (that includes barking dogs etc). And – wait for it – 0% of residents are satisfied with “Foreshore access/disagreement”. That right, folks – 0%. Nil. Niete. Not a single resident thinks the Council has got this one right. It really is a disgrace that there is no acknowledgement at all in these 75 pages of the extraordinarily strong opposition amoung residents (and for that matter visitors) of the Council’s war on freely-running dogs on the beach.

So, will the unpopular Council CEO Nigel Morris listen to the 2,000 people who have signed petitions – both on-line and traditional local – asking for us to be allowed to resume letting our dogs run freely on our beaches? We will see.

If not, then hopefully the new elected council (due to take office following elections later this year) will vote the new dog restriction laws off the table, and if

Advertisements

A Petition for Freedom

I delivered the Freedom for Fleurieu Dogs petition to the District Council of Yankalilla today; in the end it attracted over 1,000 signatures, not only from locals, but from people all over the world.

Will the Council take any notice? The track record for the short term is not good. It ignored another, traditional, petition to the same effect last month, which was signed by over 1,000 locals.  And when a proposal to ease the restrictions was moved at the last Council meeting, it was voted down. And, demonstrating the sort of mean-mindedness that is prevalent among dog-haters, they also voted down an acknowledgement of the efforts of those who had consulted with the community on the issue.

A number of locals have come to the view that the way to fix this is to get the errant Councillors voted out of office in the elections due later in the year. A new Council will simply be able to repeal the offending by-law. These locals may well be right.  The Councillors get elected with tiny numbers of votes cast, and this issue seems to be by far the most important in the minds of the local electorate. The total numbers of petitions in the two petitions is some 40% of the electorate (although of course there are bound to be a few duplicates, and some petitioners live outside the area), and so one would have thought that the prospects for getting a dog-friendly Council elected would be quite good.  It is quite extraordinary that the present Council should be insisting on these dog restrictions when they know full well that they run counter to the strong feelings of the great majority of ratepayers, particularly since the restrictions are causing real damage to the health of residents, our dogs and to the local economy.

The petition went in with a covering letter which read:

Please find herewith a hard copy of the on-line petition Freedom For Fleurieu Dogs.

As you will see, this has been signed by over 1,000 people, both locals and those from further afield, who seek a rolling back of the recent laws restricting the exercise of dogs.

As such, this on-line petition compliments last month’s petition of locals, which also attracted over 1,000 signatures.

It is a regrettable reflection of these new laws that they are offensive, not only to locals, but also to friends from all around the world.

There is a long way to go in this saga…

 

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.