Building Towns That Are "no-dog-zones"

[Kajirin]

It's something I don't quite understand....destroying habitat helps koalas??!!

Have a very healthy koala population here, heck they hang around the house. There are dogs all over the place around here as well /shrug. Notice they just scamper up the nearest tree if the dog is outside when they're near and wait til the coast is clear, then go on their way.

[Guest lavendergirl]

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as people are aware of the conditions before they buy. Not everyone likes dogs - that does not make them insane or weird.

I don't know how practicable it will be though with such a large community.

We had a thread on here recently about a lady who was being harassed by people who objected to her having dogs due to their cultural beliefs so perhaps this is a solution for cases like that.

[korbin13]

I have no issue with it. Like others have said, it would have to made very clear for potential buyers, not only the initial purchaser but any resale would need to have the terms clearly stated very early on in the marketing. And that would probably be my main reason not to buy in that sort of development, plenty of Australians have dogs, may turn out to be hard to resell.

Edited to add: So no dogs, but they are allowed cats? Of course cats don't kill wildlife

Edited October 21, 2012 by korbin13

[flame ryder]

If they really cared about the local wildlife including the koalas they would'nt put a housing estate there in the first place.

Biggest risk to native animals is loss of habitat. Many councils including my own and others where I have lived before seem to love chopping down every gum tree and in their place planting European, deciduous type trees. So they lose the lovely native birds too, then everyone complains there are too many sparrows...hmmm I wonder why??

[frufru]

Dogs do present a problem to koalas (as does loss of habitat of course). If the development is going to go ahead (despite efforts to stop it) - then I would prefer to see it with the no cats and dogs!

[Tralee]

How much will people be willing to pay for a house and land just to have the rights of others to own a dog curtailed.

And, it does not follow that dogs will kill Koalas.

Wouldn't the dingos have eradicated them centuries ago?

Of course cutting down all the river red gums wouldn't be the major cause.

But it would stop dogs peeing on the bottom of the Koalas' tree.

[lillypilly]

Hey bdierikx - jump on the introduction and welcome forum. We would all love to hear more about you and Kane.

xx LP xx

[corvus]

It's something I don't quite understand....destroying habitat helps koalas??!!

Have a very healthy koala population here, heck they hang around the house. There are dogs all over the place around here as well /shrug. Notice they just scamper up the nearest tree if the dog is outside when they're near and wait til the coast is clear, then go on their way.

Koalas can actually live in some pretty shite habitat. As long as there are feed trees, they have all they need. Ostensibly, at least. They are beset with a host of health problems that may well be associated with populations in general under stress, but being chased by dogs is certainly not going to help that. A few years ago I heard from the mouth of one of the top koala researchers in the country that dogs kill a lot of koalas and represent a significant threat to them. He had statistics to back up that assertion. I mentioned it here on DOL at the time. The conference organisers promised to put presentations on their web site, but never did. Here's the abstract of a relatively recent paper that examined the effect of dog attack on koala populations, though. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=802254931050429;res=IELHSS Dan Lunney says habitat loss forces koalas to spend more time on the ground or in the open where they are vulnerable to dog attack. Either accept it or don't. Dogs kill koalas.

There was a good segment on 4 Corners a few months back that showed how complex the issue is and how the koalas are really between a rock and a hard place and it shows in their population numbers. Here's an article and transcript of the segment: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/16/3569231.htm.

For a lot of people it's not that they don't like dogs, they just aren't bothered by the idea of not having one. Who cares? There's strata managed housing all over the place where residents are not allowed to have pets. It's not really any different.

ETA notice in the 4 Corners transcript it's pointed out several times that a lot of these developments had been approved before they realised there were koala populations there. The councils are going to get sued if they try to stop the developments. Rotten planning, but now everyone is just trying to find solutions to the sh** they put themselves in.

Edited October 21, 2012 by corvus

[HazyWal]

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.

Dunno Tralee. When I lived up at Cabarita there was a housing estate called Koala Beach something As far as I remember there was NO animals allowed, nothing. My dear mum used to say...well let them live there...in their sad little world.

[Staffyluv]

I guess people who don't want dogs in their life should have somewhere that they can live without dogs if they want..

Obviously if you are a dog lover and want dogs in your life, you wouldn't buy there..

It wouldn't bother me but then I would never live in a community like that.

I want my dog around and always will.

[Salukifan]

I thought the issue was about protecting wildlife in a sensitive area??? Don't know how it got into a "dog lovers v dog haters" discussion.

Yes, I do believe that some environmentally senisitve areas DO need to be protected from dogs because experience has shown us that not all dog owners can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to wildlife.

If they wanted to make new communities near penguin rookeries or seal colonies dog free, I'd agree too. And I'd not be blaming people who don't like dogs for the decisions. I'd be pointing the finger of blame at those dog owners who think leash and containment laws apply to everyone but them.

[frufru]

Koala Beach is one of the developments I was referring to - it has no cats and no dogs as does a section of Bogangar (Cabarita). There are also rules about fencing etc. Koalas do travel on the ground between trees - they don't swing on vines. Prices in Koala Beach were a little lower than in other new estates but not much. There were at least 7 stages and they didn't appear to have any trouble selling them so it would seen there is a market. Not a place I would live - but hey show me a lout free estate or mayhaps even a kid free one and I possibly could be a starter ....

[flame ryder]

It would be sad if a youngish non dog liking (but maybe not dog hating either) couple bought a place in an estate like that, had a family and a few years down the track the kids wanted a dog. Well it would be out of the question wouldn't it.

[Salukifan]

It would be sad if a youngish non dog liking (but maybe not dog hating either) couple bought a place in an estate like that, had a family and a few years down the track the kids wanted a dog. Well it would be out of the question wouldn't it.

They could move. People do it all the time. It's not like this is being sprung on anyone.

[HazyWal]

Koala Beach is one of the developments I was referring to - it has no cats and no dogs as does a section of Bogangar (Cabarita). There are also rules about fencing etc. Koalas do travel on the ground between trees - they don't swing on vines. Prices in Koala Beach were a little lower than in other new estates but not much. There were at least 7 stages and they didn't appear to have any trouble selling them so it would seen there is a market. Not a place I would live - but hey show me a lout free estate or mayhaps even a kid free one and I possibly could be a starter ....

Sorry frufru, no disrespect intended. Yes they don't really call it Bogangar do they?

[indigirl]

Part of the problem with living in a koala area is that you can't have much fencing, they have all sorts of rules about fencing preventing the koalas going through the 'koalas corridors' . I would hazard a guess this has contributed to the No dogs allowed rule.

Makes me laugh to think of pol moving there cos they don't like dogs, amd presumably dogs barking. You guys ever heard how much noise a koala makes? LOL and they are nocturnal. Methinks some of those ppl are in for a nasty surprise.

[Kajirin]

lol the koalas in mating season make for sore ears...loud grunts from the males and screaming from the females

[Guest Labradork]

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

Sounds good :)

[bdierikx]

Lots of good reponses here, but it seems the scale of what is being talked about and the lasting inter-generational effects of huge populations of people growing up oblivious to what dogs are, how they behave, what makes them tick, what are their benefits etc and what this will mean for future directions in dog policy is being overlooked. Thirty years ago you could take a dog on a train in Sydney for a half fare, now, even with a guide dog you are as likely as not to be challenged. Non-organisationally trained assistance animals have to seek special permission, in breach of Federal law (though this is presently under review, finally!). This signifies a huge shift in perceptions about the place of dogs in society and represents how such shifts have roll on effects. The changes in terms of how dogs are valued in our community are negative enough as it is. Start engineering populations of people who haven't got a clue and think it is the end of the world if a dog runs up to them in a park and things are going to get messy. The public liability argument that has legitimated such changes is being replaced or joined with this new environmentalism. When you look at the benefits that dogs provide people and so what damage not being able to have dogs will do to our community, it makes no sense, especially when residential areas of this scale are ultimately being built to house people.

Lets not overlook the fact that the area (Tweed Shire) has a large--frighteningly large--feral dog population already, all over the place.

It would seem to me to be more common sense that the development be done elsewhere as considering how fragile Koala numbers are nationally, tokenistic dog bans are not going to reverse the damage of tens of thousands of houses seeing habitat cleared.

I live near Koala Beach and have met two families that have left because they want to get dogs for their kids btw. Not everyone has the freedom or luxury to move like that.

Anyway it is a sad indictment on the Tweed shire council that they prefer these tokenistic and socially destructive approaches to dog related issues and that other more equitable and commonsensical options weren't/aren't being considered.

These bylaws haven't been tested in court yet and it is my understanding on advice that they won't hold.

Just curious what these massive estates are going to do to accommodate assistance animals like guide dogs, etc...?

Edited October 21, 2012 by bdierikx

[B-Q]

2 words. Slippery Slope.

I think we need more effort put in to promoting responsible ownership and cracking down on the people that don't follow the adequate, sometimes overbearing rules we already have.