Hounded By The Law

[anna]

Of course if they'd shut up and simply paid the fine, they'd have saved 3 out of the 4 rescue dogs and not cost the tax payers $$$ in wasted court time.

No dogs means no dogs. Not "small dogs OK", "rescue dogs OK" and "dogs OK if owned by people who collect poo bags and think rocks can't be part of a beach".

This is either someone who loves the drama, or who thinks they have special entitlements. I don't really understand what exactly they were contesting in the first instance - if the wife freely admitted that she was carrying the dog on the beach, what was the basis of their argument? Why should they be entitled to a waiver, but not the next person? These people drive me nuts.

[Pippa]

So what harm is there in carrying a small dog across a beach? The beach had a sign saying 'No dogs on the beach' so they carried it. The dog was not ON the beach.

Umm, if the dog was not on the beach, where was it?

[traciemc]

Good on em for fighting it. Too many stupid revenue raising laws, too many bone head council rangers who are just frustrated cops, far too many anti dog laws. Too many people who one assumes are pro dog who make fun of people like this and who just roll over when more and more anti dog laws are introduced.

[poodlefan]

Good on em for fighting it. Too many stupid revenue raising laws, too many bone head council rangers who are just frustrated cops, far too many anti dog laws. Too many people who one assumes are pro dog who make fun of people like this and who just roll over when more and more anti dog laws are introduced.

"Fighting it"?

Generally speaking the most effective way to "fight" a law isn't to insist that you are special and it shouldn't apply to you because YOUR dog fits in your arms.

Courts don't change laws. They enforce them. You can't fight a law in court.

The most effective way to fight for change is to target politicians, not rangers doing their jobs and enforcing the laws on the books.

The reason there are so many anti-dog laws is quite simple - irresponsible dog owners allowing their dogs to make pests of themselves and not picking up after them. Laws get introduced because non-dog owners get pissed off. Fix that problem and we wouldn't need any more laws.

I'm pro dog alright. Unlike the "fighters" in this case, I'm neither ignorant nor arrogant enough to think the law doesn't apply to me and my dogs.

Edited October 29, 2010 by poodlefan

[Steve]

Good on em for fighting it. Too many stupid revenue raising laws, too many bone head council rangers who are just frustrated cops, far too many anti dog laws. Too many people who one assumes are pro dog who make fun of people like this and who just roll over when more and more anti dog laws are introduced.

Um - you dont fight the law or try to have the law changed by breaking it. If you're guilty - you're guilty full stop and they were. They had their dog on the beach - GUILTY AS CHARGED.

If it were that easy we would all be running around doing all manner of things we think shouldnt be in law.

[Rayvale]

Sadly it is true - laws were only meant for people who agree to follow them - this case shows that very clearly and so do our jails which are filled with people caught breaking them!

These people broke the law - tried to argue about it, and got smacked down. There are plenty of places that dogs are allowed and I am sure they could find a dog friendly beach if they tried. Too bad incidents like this make the non-dog owning public believe that these people are like the MAJORITY of dog owners instead of the truth of the matter being that these owners are in the MINORITY!

[Tim'sMum]

Good on em for fighting it. Too many stupid revenue raising laws, too many bone head council rangers who are just frustrated cops, far too many anti dog laws. Too many people who one assumes are pro dog who make fun of people like this and who just roll over when more and more anti dog laws are introduced.

Thank you Tracie.

I find it hard to understand why so many dog owners are paying out on people who attempted to NOT break the law. They saw a sign saying 'No dogs on the Beach"...obviously designed to stop dogs pooping and peeing on the beach and keep them away from kids, swimmers, picnickers etc. which is fair enough...so they carried their dog across the beach (for less than a minute probably) to an area of common land (being the foreshore) where presumably dogs are allowed, because there were no signs saying....'No dogs on the rocks or the foreshore'. A dog is ON the beach when it's paws are touching the sand. It can't be ON a beach if it is carried, it can't poop or pee or annoy people on the beach...which is what the 'law' is trying to prevent.

Just how anal are we as a society going to get? :p

I wish Council Rangers were as quick to fine every perfectly healthy bastard that parks in Disabled Parking. Our local shopping centre has very limited disabled spaces, and I think people would be surprised at just how often people park in these spots, without a legitimate Disabled Parking Permit. I actually rang the Centre Office to complain about how often I see it happen (and how often I end up parking at the far end of the car park and then have to push a wheelchair with my 60kg mum on board much further than I should). The shopping centre have said it happens often.......but only Council Rangers can fine them...yet they rarely ever bother to visit the car park. Why....???? They are probably too busy fining people who have carried a tiny dog across a beach.

[Pippa]

They saw a sign saying 'No dogs on the Beach"...obviously designed to stop dogs pooping and peeing on the beach and keep them away from kids, swimmers, picnickers etc. which is fair enough...so they carried their dog across the beach (for less than a minute probably) to an area of common land (being the foreshore) where presumably dogs are allowed, because there were no signs saying....'No dogs on the rocks or the foreshore'. A dog is ON the beach when it's paws are touching the sand. It can't be ON a beach if it is carried, it can't poop or pee or annoy people on the beach...which is what the 'law' is trying to prevent.

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it?

[Tim'sMum]

They saw a sign saying 'No dogs on the Beach"...obviously designed to stop dogs pooping and peeing on the beach and keep them away from kids, swimmers, picnickers etc. which is fair enough...so they carried their dog across the beach (for less than a minute probably) to an area of common land (being the foreshore) where presumably dogs are allowed, because there were no signs saying....'No dogs on the rocks or the foreshore'. A dog is ON the beach when it's paws are touching the sand. It can't be ON a beach if it is carried, it can't poop or pee or annoy people on the beach...which is what the 'law' is trying to prevent.

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it?

They didn't carry it around all day on the beach. It was outside, not inside a building. You can't use that as a logical argument.

[Sheridan]

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it?

They didn't carry it around all day on the beach. It was outside, not inside a building. You can't use that as a logical argument.

Of course, she can.

[raz]

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it?

They didn't carry it around all day on the beach. It was outside, not inside a building. You can't use that as a logical argument.

Of course, she can.

Scratching my head here. What's so hard about grasping the concept? The dog was on the beach.

Even worse - the owner clogged up the court list with garbage. I'm convinced it's Barking Mad loonies.

[Steve]

Dogs do more on beaches than poop and pee. Lots of people who visit the beach with an expectation that there will be no dogs there may have felt uncomfortable because the dog was there - not knowing when it may be put down etc.

They thought they werent breaking the law - they were - they got caught .Could have said 'ooops' and paid a small fine which is what they risked when they stepped onto the beach with their dog but instead they get their names in the paper.

Idiots - and all they do is ensure that there are more and more laws with more and more specific stuff made illegal for the rest of us.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Steve

[raz]

I was actually having a really funny discussion (albeit quite frightening) with someone yesterday who said she has 'the right to take my dog on the beach'. I said - errrr no you dont if the Council prohibits dogs on the beach. I dont know why they just dont get it. Are people really that incredibly stupid?

[Steve]

d

Edited October 29, 2010 by Steve

[perrin]

I was actually having a really funny discussion (albeit quite frightening) with someone yesterday who said she has 'the right to take my dog on the beach'. I said - errrr no you dont if the Council prohibits dogs on the beach. I dont know why they just dont get it. Are people really that incredibly stupid?

Kinda reminds me of the people who think they have the right to send their kids to school with peanut butter and other nutty foods when there is a clear policy of no nuts.

My kids like peanut butter but no way would i endanger someone elses child by letting them take it to school.

[Tim'sMum]

Dogs do more on beaches than poop and pee. Lots of people who visit the beach with an expectation that there will be no dogs there may have felt uncomfortable because the dog was there - not knowing when it may be put down etc.

Oh...these other people (who may have been there or may have not) would have been uncomfortable while the owners walked for all of the whole 10m it took to cross the sand, holding a 4.8kg tiny dog?

You know that for a fact Steve? How long does it take you to walk 10m? Maybe 15 seconds? Was that 15 seconds of sheer terror for any other beach goers with them thinking...'Oh, no an evil horrible dog is'almost' on the beach!' ...despite it paws being at least a metre above the sand and it being totally controlled at the time.

The owners were approached by the Ranger when they were on the rocks...not on the beach. Therefore the dog was NOT on the beach and NOT in the water.

It was sheer bloodymindedness of the Ranger to fine them over such a trivial interpretation of the law.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

The point is, as far as some people are concerned, that there ought to be some discretion used when issuing fines, instead of treating everything like a dichotomy. Isn't that in everyones best interests ? Personally I think the answer is yes.

In this country, citizens have a right to appeal. When the government creates these by laws, they accept that it will create a greater burden on the courts, its a choice they make. The revenue they rake in more than covers the cost don't worry, and as soon as it doesn't they will either stop enforcing the law or scrap it all together.

[mita]

How long does it take you to walk 10m? Maybe 15 seconds? Was that 15 seconds of sheer terror for any other beach goers with them thinking...'Oh, no an evil horrible dog is'almost' on the beach!' ...despite it paws being at least a metre above the sand and it being totally controlled at the time.

The owners were approached by the Ranger when they were on the rocks...not on the beach. Therefore the dog was NOT on the beach and NOT in the water.

Yes, this is why I'd have thought I wasn't contravening the law, carrying the tiny-sized dog in the same circumstances (& being on the move!).

So I'd have found myself in the same position as the dog's owners.

But seems like the ranger thought otherwise & interpreted the law as a dog, any dog, having a presence on the beach (carried or not).

Which would have copped me a fine, too.

My only difference is that I wouldn't have fought the case in court, knowing how literally the law is interpreted by authority. So I'd have thought it too much of a risk of costing me more money, by challenging it.

I'd have just paid the original fine, putting it down to another situation where the letter of the law (the little dog was present on the beach) outclasses the spirit of the law (my little dog was not physically touching the beach!).

Edited October 30, 2010 by mita

[traciemc]

Well, I am not allowed to take my dog to work with me, but if I use your logic and carry it around all day, it won't be at work will it?

They didn't carry it around all day on the beach. It was outside, not inside a building. You can't use that as a logical argument.

Of course, she can.

Scratching my head here. What's so hard about grasping the concept? The dog was on the beach.

Even worse - the owner clogged up the court list with garbage. I'm convinced it's Barking Mad loonies.

They have every right to fight the fine in court - its part of our great democracy Raz....and what about the people who really waste police and court time, I seem to remember just recently a young muslim woman claimed the police pulled her headscarf off, and after a significant waste of police time and public money, it was proved she was lying through her teeth. Can't seem to remember your post complaining about that....

[traciemc]

Good on em for fighting it. Too many stupid revenue raising laws, too many bone head council rangers who are just frustrated cops, far too many anti dog laws. Too many people who one assumes are pro dog who make fun of people like this and who just roll over when more and more anti dog laws are introduced.

Um - you dont fight the law or try to have the law changed by breaking it. If you're guilty - you're guilty full stop and they were. They had their dog on the beach - GUILTY AS CHARGED.

If it were that easy we would all be running around doing all manner of things we think shouldnt be in law.

Um - they were of the opinion that they weren't breaking the law, so they were fighting what was a wongful conviction in their opinion. They have every right to do this in a democracy. If you are happy Steve to lie down and cop every stupid revenue raising law greedy local councils can devise then more fool you. Councils just love people like you.