Building Towns That Are "no-dog-zones"

[bdierikx]

<<<NEWS FLASH>>> the issue discussed below has develped further see

http://www.mydailynews.com.au/news/no-dog-ban-imposed-on-planned-kings-forest-develop/1598272/

I would like to bring to the attention of all DOL-ers that in northern NSW there is a move by the Greens councillor in the Tweed shire to have a new development called Kings Forest, a residential area that is going to house 40, 000 people, declared a no dog zone. By last year’s census the population living in this area will equal a 50% increase on current levels and so constitute close to a third of the population of the shire.

What this means is that for generations to come a massive portion of the population of the area will not be able to own dogs. This overlooks the myriad benefits that dogs provide to humans in terms of greater life expectancy of people who live with dogs, significantly reduced risk of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, faster recovery from surgery and other physical trauma to the body, amelioration of isolation, alienation and related conditions of living that induce or exacerbate mental health conditions, increased public and private safety and in the words of people who actually spend time looking into and researching, rather than merely opining about dogs and humans “people who live with dogs just plain feel better than people who don’t” (Bradley 2005).

Many of you may think “so what? I don’t live there, it doesn’t affect me”, however, it is becoming a trend across much of Australia that building and subdividing and development approvals can be fast tracked if this kind of tokenistic environmentalism is a part of the plans. In the case of the Tweed development it is because enough homes for 40, 000 people are being built in the middle of the area’s largest most densely populated Koala habitat that the Greens have come up with ludicrous idea. It is Lunacy to think that preventing people from having dogs is going to ameliorate the impact of enough houses for forty thousand people being built in a Koala habitat. Wouldn’t putting the development elsewhere make more sense?

The net result of such a state of affairs is of concern as an increase in population of people who do not grow up around dogs can only mean trouble and greater restrictions for those of us who have them. I personally have an assistance animal and so am in theory exempt from such lunacy and always will be ( though it is always a fight to get access to properties if people know you have a dog even if it is an assistance animal), but I know that one of the biggest barriers to having an assistance animal (dog) is the lack of understanding and prejudices against dogs in the wider community.

Such a development as making an entire town a dog free zone will only serve to exacerbate these problems that occur from people’s ignorance of dogs.

From breeders to dog welfare groups and the more sane part of society that owns and likes dogs, this emerging trend should be cause for concern. Just FYI.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bdierikx

[juice]

In a way it would be a good idea, put all the people in one area so we don't have to deal with their over the top behavior when they see a dog in the street.

I for one would love not to have people screaming and running away when i take my dogs for a walk.

The downside would be it creeping into other suburbs and we get ousted out.

Perhaps we could have a child free suburb too, and a Suburu free one aswell :laugh:

[Brucebriz]

Perhaps we could have a child free suburb too, and a Suburu free one aswell :laugh:

LOL, absolutely!

[Alyosha]

In northern NSW there has long been co-operative communities and similar that have no domestic pets. It appeals to people seeking a certain type of lifestyle. I wouldn't see it as an issue. People who don't want to live around dogs have the right to do so. Some people don't like dogs. They won't, no matter how mad we think that is. No amount of eductaing or exposure will change that. If developers are keen to limit their sales market then so be it.

[Esky the husky]

I voted 'sometimes' for the council being able to declare areas to be no dog zones.

On the flip side I'd love if there was a much more 'pro' dog council area too.

I've dreamed about what it would look like many a time

[fuzzy82]

I don't quite see the problem. Why not give dog haters a place to live where they don't have to be around dogs if they don't want to? People who want to own dogs will obviously choose to live somewhere else.

[Guest donatella]

Suits me. While they're all living in their no dog community they're less at risk of being my next door neighbour

[Tralee]

NO CATS and NO DOGS ALLOWED at the Channon.

This is a forward, free thinking community of intentional lifestylers.

No dogs, but drug dealers are welcome.

I bet their no dogs society will come back to bite them on their arse.

It already has at the Channon

[OSoSwift]

I would be happy if all the weirdo's (ie animal haters) lived in one small getto area. Then the rest of us normal people could get about our lives without them annoying us.

That is said only slighty tongue in cheek :) I would be happier if the people who thought they loved dogs but actually let them roam, fight and generally be a nusience all lived in one area as well.

Edited October 21, 2012 by OSoSwift

[megan_]

I agree. Don't assume that all people who don't want to live near dogs are dog haters either - they just might be tired of not being able to go to the park without being bowled over. I'm all for people being able to choose how they live, as long as it doesn't discriminate against people.

Personally I'd like to live in a community where cats weren't allowed to roam and owners who let their pets (dogs or cats) roam faced significant financial penalty. I'd also like "responsible dog owner" friendly communities with off leash areas you could book.

In northern NSW there has long been co-operative communities and similar that have no domestic pets. It appeals to people seeking a certain type of lifestyle. I wouldn't see it as an issue. People who don't want to live around dogs have the right to do so. Some people don't like dogs. They won't, no matter how mad we think that is. No amount of eductaing or exposure will change that. If developers are keen to limit their sales market then so be it.

[Guest donatella]

I'm not so sure. If people were to go out of their way to live in a 'no dog' zone, i'd say they have a pretty high dislike of dogs if they do not want to live in a community with not one dog whatsoever.

I could never imagine it, but then again i'm an animal lover. To want to live in a dog free zone to me speaks volumes about how they feel. I'd say most people who were neutral are here nor there but to actually seek dog free community living speaks 'dog hater' to me.

[bdierikx]

I agree that people that don't want to live with dogs shouldn't have to and therefore shouldn't buy/get one. The ghettos of dog owners and non-dog owners is too redolent of other social divisions in history for me to buy into it as tempting as the vision may be. But what is being missed here is that a lot of people won't have a choice. This is where things get problematic. The scale of people we are talking about is huge and as such will have long lasting broader cultural impacts. Small comunities that voluntarily don't have dogs is one thing, a population of 40,000 who can't is another. Ultimately we will out live them all I suppose but it would be nice to live in a sociaty where pro dog values and the subsequent positive culture of dog ownership could flourish.

@Esky Husky, I can tell you from the experience I have had being out and about in public with my boy everyday, everywhere, the pro dog society you dream of is wonderful. Being accompanied by my boy everywhere, hearing children continually telling gtheir mums "look a puppy" and asking "can I pat it", having elderly people stop me in shopping isles at supermarkets and asking to pat my boy and then listening to their stories of dogs (commony labradors) that they used to own and the tears they shed reminiscing on these times and their sorrow at not being able to have a dog because of their age and where they live not allowing them. People are far more engaging and friendly and always seem happier being able to interact with a dog. There are the exceptions such as security guards and bus drivers and other self appoined fun police that get off on picking on the disabled but ultimately if we could all do this we would truly be living in the lucky country.

[Greytmate]

I don't like this idea at all.

The biggest threat to koala habitat is land clearing.

It is easy for a council to ban dogs, but very hard for them to put controls on developers. It's all about the cash.

Anyone choosing to build a big new house and land package there should be aware that they are doing way more damage to the koala population than people who live in smaller dwellings on smaller blocks and keep their dogs responsibly.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Greytmate

[bdierikx]

I agree. Don't assume that all people who don't want to live near dogs are dog haters either - they just might be tired of not being able to go to the park without being bowled over. I'm all for people being able to choose how they live, as long as it doesn't discriminate against people.

Personally I'd like to live in a community where cats weren't allowed to roam and owners who let their pets (dogs or cats) roam faced significant financial penalty. I'd also like "responsible dog owner" friendly communities with off leash areas you could book.

In northern NSW there has long been co-operative communities and similar that have no domestic pets. It appeals to people seeking a certain type of lifestyle. I wouldn't see it as an issue. People who don't want to live around dogs have the right to do so. Some people don't like dogs. They won't, no matter how mad we think that is. No amount of eductaing or exposure will change that. If developers are keen to limit their sales market then so be it.

I think banning up to 40,000 people from being able to choose whether they want a dog or not is discriminating. I think the millinos of dollars that can be saved in public health and commuity services by promoting dog ownership is what we should be thinking about here. Not to mention the safety and quality of life issues that dogs provide.

[*kirty*]

LOL yes, lets bulldoze enough bushland to build houses for 40,000 people and then ban dogs who might hurt all the koalas who are now wandering around the streets because their trees were cut down...

[Tralee]

Well, you are not allowed to say No Dogs.

It breachers the discrimination laws.

It would be the same as having a sign saying No Women.

You can say Men Only.

That's the difference.

How are they going to sign their neighbourhood?

People Only?

Someone will need to tell the birds and vermin.

[steamboat]

As long as it is well advertised &/or signposted so purchasers don't get a nasty surprise after they have bought.

It would a be burglars paradise though, no dogs.

The local panel beater & security patrol would have attack cats.

The cops, sniffer wombats.

Sounds like paradise.

If you're a villian.

[BlaznHotAussies]

What a depressing community...

Wouldn't any children born and brought up there, with no exposure to dogs (or any animals???) be crap-scared if they decided to move away (for who knows, uni or something...) to a community where dogs and pets in general are the norm?

That's like my personal dystopia

[Guest Labradork]

I agree with Scootaloo... How depressing. Sounds like my worst nightmare

[frufru]

This concept is not new in the Tweed area - there are already several developments that ban the ownership of cats and dogs due to resident Koala populations. They also have other restrictions on fencing and traffic flow which facilitate koala movement. It is simple - if you want to own a cat or dog then don't buy or build in these developments. They represent a minority of housing choices in the area.

Personally, I would like to see a greater number of developments which ban drunken louts!!!!!!