Building Towns That Are "no-dog-zones"

[megan_]

SO you want to force people to interact with dogs then? As HW pointed out, this decision was made on environmental grounds. Dogs can - and do - hunt wildlife. I would have preferred no development and just pay the developer out.

[skelp2]

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

And what is wrong with a Subaru? :laugh:

Friends live in a gated estate that is a koala area. Dogs are welcome, fences are not though, so either the dogs are chained up, on a running wire or kept in a wire enclosure. They have had no issues with dogs attacking koalas. Male koalas make a lot of noise at times, especially at night.

It would have to be a 'Greens' idiot who thinks it is fine to move 40,000 people in to an area, but not allow dogs. Do they not realize how much impact that human population would have?

[frufru]

These bans are driven by developers who want to develop these lucrative areas at all costs - Koala Beach is on a hill overlooking a gorgeous area of beach. There are huge areas of off leash dog beaches so it is not that people don't interact with or see dogs. The local markets is one of a handful of markets that allows dogs. The Tweed region is growing at an unbelievable rate - in the 10 years that we lived in Pottsville there were 3 new estates with about 8/9 stages each - all sold out then between kingscliff and Bogangar (yes, they do call it that Stan's mum LOL - Aboriginal. I expect) the Salt and Casurina developments on the most treacherous piece of coastline in the area - sold out for amazing amounts of money. So if people could stop moving there it would really help the Koalas - we moved away because it was turning into the Gold Coast - wall to wall housing as far as the eye could see. :cry: All very sad for people who remember this area from their childhood, If it were not for Koala lobby groups and greens these estates would go ahead with no provision for koalas at all. Even the Byron Council (very green)has had to approve the development of new estates and Lennox Head is unreognizable as the village I new as a child......The state government has the power to override local gov't in many planning matters :cry:

Oh, and as an after thought - when you get huge population increases like this - that is when we find dogs banned from beaches - we have already lost the right to swim dogs and horses in the Hastings Creek and I attended protests to prevent the loss of off leash dog beaches several times

Edited October 21, 2012 by frufru

[bdierikx]

It isn't the increase of population that sees off-leash beaches closed it is council is anti-dog. This is a broad trend across many councils and dog owners should not be beholden to such narrow minded world views. There are many other ways they could go about managing dogs in the shire but they don't even give them a thought. Typically lazy, spineless and devoid of any social intelligence.

Recently in the Tweed they unnecessarily closed an off leash dog park that has been around for over twenty years in South Tweed for no better reason than the people involved in developing a sports complex adjacent to it knew absolutely nothing about dogs and dog behaviour, didn't care to know and could see none of the value in the park as social resource for ameliorating so many of the bad things they think dogs embody ie barking through lack of exercise, agression through lack of socialisation etc. Of course there is the general lack of intelligence that makes thinking that way possible and the councillors who were approached over the issue didn't know there heads from their feet when it came to understanding what was at stake.

Closing parks to put playgrounds in (which is what saw the park closed) when there are 85 childrens playgrounds and 14 off leash areas across the shire,including beaches, banning dog ownership in an area that will house over 40,000 people and closing beaches and creeks to dogs is not a symptom of population growth alone. It is the underpinning anti-dog sentiment that shapes how council chooses to act in regard to dogs.

Re the comment about living in Koala beach, when Kings Forest, the true advent of the Gold Coast to Northern NSW, is built, it will be the equivalent of Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah being no dog zones, this is fundamentally different to the Koala Beach development. Massive difference of scale.

Should have mentioned earlier that this ridiculous idea was voted down by council last year. In an attempt to appear relevant the Greens councilor has ressurected it. I handed out how to vote cards for the Greens in last years state election, won't make that mistake again

If the Greens want to do somethng meaningful environmentally this is what it should be

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_southern_ocean_5/?tIFHhdb

Edited October 21, 2012 by bdierikx

[Dame Aussie]

I think it's just one more example of government controlling the way we choose to live and I don't support it.

[Sparassidae]

I support it.

I think it should be expanded as well - edges of nat parks, etc etc.

I see no problem with restricting the way we live in the name of conservation - people need houses. It's all well and good to say we shouldn't build houses but people need somewhere to live.

[Christina]

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.

My mind was going along similar lines as I was reading through. The thing is that once we allow this kind of rule to be made in the first place we open the doors for similar or more stringent rules to be made. We set a precedent. A potentially bad one.

People pay for their home & land & what goes on in those boundaries should be their business as long as its not horrendous or illegal. Having a dog is not.

Society has become so intolerant of so many things to the point of wanting everything controlled. This idea does not appeal to me at all.

Re the Koalas. They can hardly be worried about the dogs really, its a smoke screen.

The damage is already done with the people & houses. They are the danger.

[Christina]

I don't know much about Koala behaviour but don't they have the potential to become aggressive under certain circumstances ?

If it was breeding season & they were in someones back yard would they react to people ?

My adult daughter got bitten by one at a petting zoo. We all it was only a small nip though.

[corvus]

My mind was going along similar lines as I was reading through. The thing is that once we allow this kind of rule to be made in the first place we open the doors for similar or more stringent rules to be made. We set a precedent. A potentially bad one.

The precedent set was allowing these areas to be developed in the first place. It was irresponsible planning. They approved it before they had done proper EIAs. I saw it over and over again when I was consulting.

This is not a case of "Oh, developments are fine as long as we ban dogs." It's a case of "Holy crap, we are in a lot of trouble. If we try to stop this development we are going to make very powerful enemies who are going to sue the pants off us and send us broke, and if we don't do something to protect the Koalas there will quite possibly be an international outcry or we'll have to purchase compensatory habitat or something." Do not get me started on compensatory habitat. Banning dogs is part of a compromise. I don't think anyone in conservation really thinks it is a solution. All sorts of awful compromises have been going on. Basically it comes down to the development will go ahead one way or another so what can we do to preserve as much of the Koala population as possible. It's typical conservation.

There's a reason why I quit environmental consulting. It's very hard to make a difference, and a lot of the time you are standing by bitterly just trying to make the best of a bad situation for the wildlife while knowing it probably will delay the inevitable at best. That's the reality of it. The developments go ahead. They are very hard to stop. You really need an EPBC listed species and you'd better be able to prove the development will have a significant impact on it because you'll find yourself in court arguing it. It's notoriously hard to prove. Even then, there will probably be compromises made so everyone gets a piece of the pie. The dog thing is a very small part of the bigger picture. Very, very small. I say let the conservationists do their job and pay the price for poor planning and greed without complaint. I doubt anyone is going to feel the impacts of the development more than the conservationists do. You might be upset that some people who probably don't want dogs won't be able to easily change their minds, but they have been desperately trying to stop something they love dying and have had to settle for amelioration measures. Suck it up, people. It's the price you pay and be grateful it's so small. Others are paying much more dearly. The Koala populations on the eastern seaboard have recently been listed on the EPBC Act, thank heavens, but it won't make it impossible to develop in those areas.

[Sheridan]

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.

This in its entirety.

[Guest Labradork]

My mind was going along similar lines as I was reading through. The thing is that once we allow this kind of rule to be made in the first place we open the doors for similar or more stringent rules to be made. We set a precedent. A potentially bad one.

The precedent set was allowing these areas to be developed in the first place. It was irresponsible planning. They approved it before they had done proper EIAs. I saw it over and over again when I was consulting.

This is not a case of "Oh, developments are fine as long as we ban dogs." It's a case of "Holy crap, we are in a lot of trouble. If we try to stop this development we are going to make very powerful enemies who are going to sue the pants off us and send us broke, and if we don't do something to protect the Koalas there will quite possibly be an international outcry or we'll have to purchase compensatory habitat or something." Do not get me started on compensatory habitat. Banning dogs is part of a compromise. I don't think anyone in conservation really thinks it is a solution. All sorts of awful compromises have been going on. Basically it comes down to the development will go ahead one way or another so what can we do to preserve as much of the Koala population as possible. It's typical conservation.

There's a reason why I quit environmental consulting. It's very hard to make a difference, and a lot of the time you are standing by bitterly just trying to make the best of a bad situation for the wildlife while knowing it probably will delay the inevitable at best. That's the reality of it. The developments go ahead. They are very hard to stop. You really need an EPBC listed species and you'd better be able to prove the development will have a significant impact on it because you'll find yourself in court arguing it. It's notoriously hard to prove. Even then, there will probably be compromises made so everyone gets a piece of the pie. The dog thing is a very small part of the bigger picture. Very, very small. I say let the conservationists do their job and pay the price for poor planning and greed without complaint. I doubt anyone is going to feel the impacts of the development more than the conservationists do. You might be upset that some people who probably don't want dogs won't be able to easily change their minds, but they have been desperately trying to stop something they love dying and have had to settle for amelioration measures. Suck it up, people. It's the price you pay and be grateful it's so small. Others are paying much more dearly. The Koala populations on the eastern seaboard have recently been listed on the EPBC Act, thank heavens, but it won't make it impossible to develop in those areas.

I agree - it's a smoke screen... They're using the 'no dogs' angle to cover their arses because they f***** up with the planning.

[Greytmate]

I support it.

I think it should be expanded as well - edges of nat parks, etc etc.

I see no problem with restricting the way we live in the name of conservation - people need houses. It's all well and good to say we shouldn't build houses but people need somewhere to live.

The houses people are building are not restricted enough. If sensitive areas are going to be developed there needs to be control to make sure that valuable land is used as efficiently and sustainably as possible. That isn't happening right now, people seem to build huge land-wasting McMansions wherever they want. And some areas should not be developed at all.

The council knows this, they employ town planners and designers who know what can be done to develop areas much more efficiently and sustainably. But the more land is developed the more money council makes, and that is way more important to them than koalas are.

But they ban dogs, so that people think they care.

[bdierikx]

forgot to mention that this is all for 140 Koalas

http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/give-koalas-a-lifeline-says-milne/

Edited October 23, 2012 by bdierikx

[Sparassidae]

There used to be more than 140 there...

Populations there are declining. The development has been approved, it can't be stopped. Even if banning dogs in that area saves 5 Koalas a year then it's a worthwhile compromise.

Greytmate - I agree, I think you should be restricted in the way houses are built but then I also think there should be limits on the amount of concrete etc used in developments.

[bdierikx]

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Dame Aussie]

:cheer:

[Katdogs]

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I know Kane is amazing but how did he learn to type?

Hi B

[bdierikx]

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I know Kane is amazing but how did he learn to type?

Hi B

Well Katdog, as you would know he can talk and so when he asked me to type all his lobbying for a fairer and more equitable society, where accessing places with a service dog doesn't come down to ill informed opinion, I decided to do myself a favour and bought him the software Dragon naturally speaking and bingo he took it from there. :)

[mantis]

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It's a pity the development permit didn't get over turned.

[bdierikx]

The dog ban got over turned http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/mayor-blamed-for-failed-dog-ban/#comment-2110

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It's a pity the development permit didn't get over turned.

There is also now the possibility of working towards getting residents involved and fostering a positive culture of dog ownership and rather than alienate dog owning residents, involve them in the conservation of the Koalas, lots of possibilites on that front. So much that can be done. And it looks like the Mayor, Barry Longland might just be the right person to see that happen see link http://www.mydailynews.com.au/news/no-dog-ban-imposed-on-planned-kings-forest-develop/1598272/?utm_campaign=News+PM&utm_source=Daily+News&utm_medium=email