{"id":202,"date":"2011-01-21T11:10:21","date_gmt":"2011-01-21T11:10:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/?p=202"},"modified":"2021-08-02T14:42:40","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T04:12:40","slug":"understanding-anti-dog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/dogs-and-politics\/understanding-anti-dog\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding Anti-Dog"},"content":{"rendered":"

I had an interesting phone call from a gentleman from an action group designed to put more accountability on dog owners. Without being said explicitly, the group was overall ‘anti dog’. Though there may be some cultural reasons for this I think, overwhelmingly, this group was formed as the individuals are in some way annoyed by dogs in their lives and feel the need to do something about it.<\/p>\n

Though the gentleman and I definitely did not agree on many things, it was at the very least an interesting conversation. Below are some of the parts that I recall the most strongly and I believe could be of the most interest.<\/p>\n

Please note that I live in the state of South Australia, and my comments are particularly in regard to my state. I do, however, welcome you to comment on any of your own legislation in your country or state, and how you feel it is working, or not.<\/p>\n

The Dog and Cat Management Act<\/a> does not require owners to be responsible.<\/strong> This is significant. It suggests responsibility, it asks for responsibility, it almost pleas – but it does not require. In this way, negligence is permissible.<\/p>\n

I would say this hole is because responsibility is hard to define. The gentleman suggested that adding a clause in the Dog and Cat Management Act that made responsibility enforceable. In his view, a \u00a0responsibility definition would encapsulate “choosing a dog suitable for your situation” and “managing your dog in such a way that it does not inconvenience others”. Though both are clearly nice ideas, they are as vague as “responsibility” itself.<\/p>\n

What most perturbed me was “suitable for your situation”. The gentleman suggested a checklist system which council rangers would use when a complaint came in regarding dogs. Though the gentleman was adamant this would only be used following a complaint, I saw this difficult to legislate. But my most loud objection was: No one should decide what dog is ‘suitable’ for me except for me.<\/p>\n

\"Photos<\/a>

Photos \u00a9 Ruthless Photos<\/p><\/div>\n

Nuisance barking is not adequately addressed by councils.<\/strong> Nuisance barking encapsulated much of our discussion. Currently, there is no universal method that councils are required to undertake in regard to problem barking. As such, councils are free to choose individualised methods for responding to issues within their council area.<\/p>\n

In most cases, I believe councils in my sate require the complainant to log dog barking for 2 weeks before actioning the complaint with a ranger. The gentleman made a good point – 2 weeks is a long time for a dog to be distressfully barking before the council makes any action. It’s a long time for neighbours to suffer too. It would be nice if there was a mechanism for a more immediate response.<\/p>\n

When laws are inadequate, people take matters into their own hands.<\/strong> In the perfect world we wouldn’t have to consider this aspect. However, it’s a fact: When people do not get resolve through the legal channels, they may be motivated to seek their own justice. For barking dogs, this may mean poisoning the dog. I am aware of many people who do have concerns about their dog’s welfare because of neighbour disputes. I can understand why it might be beneficial to have legislation regarding nuisance barking so that these disputes could be resolved in a more reasonable way.<\/p>\n

Personally, I think <\/strong>we don’t need anymore legislation. I think we can work with what we’ve got, it just needs to be enforced. \u00a0Next year, I will be paying $83 for dog registration. That is a lot of money. My council has done great things, such as build a dog park, which is lovely, but I much rather that it be used for more ranger-power. Particularly:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Dogs wandering at large<\/span> – I have so far picked up approximately 5 dogs in my council area, wandering at large. Surely this is not my job! I do it because I care, and I’d like someone to do the same for me if my dogs escaped. But really, there shouldn’t be the opportunity for me to catch these dogs wandering at large. There should be enough ranger-power that they are picked up before I find them.<\/li>\n
  2. Dogs barking<\/span> – Once, I rang the council regarding my barking dogs, and I was advised I should grab my dogs by the scruff when they bark and shake them. Luckily, I am little more savvy than this ranger, but how many people actually take this advice? There needs to be more proactive solutions rather than\u00a0inefficient, abusive, medieval advice.<\/li>\n
  3. Dogs unregistered<\/span> – I know dogs in my council area who are not registered. Dogs are not subtle. Dogs are highly visible. The council should be watching and making sure all dogs are registered. It is unfair that I pay sums in registration, while others get by. I want owners of unregistered dogs to be fined.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Most adamantly, I am against new legislation because I know it is responsible people like myself who will be obeying it, and not those irresponsible. New legislation only punishes those who choose to obey. And really, what we have at the moment is adequate. Just the enforcement is lacking.<\/p>\n

    I enjoyed this peculiar conversation as I actually got the chance to consider dog issues from ‘the other side’.<\/p>\n

    What do you think? Do you see any loud holes in dog legislation in your area? Is there anything that works really well? I’d love to hear from you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Not everyone loves dogs. I got a phone call from one such individual, and this is a brief synopsis of our conversation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[186,183,191,11,192,58,59,185,187,189,193,70,194],"class_list":["post-202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dogs-and-politics","tag-anti-dog","tag-barking","tag-councils","tag-dogs","tag-justice","tag-law","tag-legislation","tag-management","tag-negligence","tag-nuisance","tag-registration","tag-responsibility","tag-wandering"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202"}],"version-history":[{"count":45,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4875,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions\/4875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}