Sunday, March 30, 2008

Auckland Dog Owners Take Heed

Auckland City Council as taken it upon themselves to change their policy and hence bylaws; and as is their want they have undertaken this in a somewhat duplicitous manner.

Please note they state that:
Clause 7 of the dogs policy stated that the council would review the size and availability of off-leash dog exercise areas every three years and as part of the council's strategic growth management process.
And that these changes are merely in response to this;
The proposed dogs policy is in response to this undertaking.

So why is the 5th "minor change" to reflect the "requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the needs of the community" to:

remove the obligation to review the off-leash exercise areas every three years?

If nothing else oppose this duplicitous undertaking of the council to remove one of the few remaining rights as a dog owner we hold!

Of course they are probably just trying to hide their own astounding levels of incompetence. Given that the "Designated dog exercise areas" map they have sent out to support their changes show no sign of Flatrock reserve (our local dog exercise area), and still prominantly shows Fisher Park on Carbine Road. I'm sure Coca-Cola Amatil would be more than happy to open their gates to a horde of dog owners given that the council sold the park to them nearly 3 years ago (Councils own press release here) - and they have subsequently built a warehouse on it...
(PS online coucil link to dog exercise areas).


david said...

So, what 'rights as dog owners' do you have?

iiq374 said...

That being part of the issue - very few;

The right to have dog exercise facilities appropriate to the levels of dog ownership in an area used to be one of them; but now that they only need to review the facilities every 10 years even this is being eroded.

As a dog owner we don't even have the right to let our dogs loose on our own properties anymore!

Given that confinement of a dog is the 2nd highest attributable factor in recorded dog attacks one would have thought that checking appropriate exercise facilities are available should be foremost in a dog management plan...

David said...

Let me see if I get this straight...

People get dogs knowing that confinement (the existence of many urban dogs) causes attacks and that the public should be required to pay for park space so your dogs wont attack them?

If you get a dog, you should not ask the public to provide and pay forspace for you to play in

iiq374 said...

Sorry you didn't get it straight...

We don't ask the public to provide and pay for space to play in - we expect the fees that we already pay for the provision of space to play in to be used to provide that space.

Also I expect the right to run my dog on my own property (which is currently partially denied).

Furthermore your argument could be turned into people have children that confinement (the existence of many urban kids) causes attacks / crime and that the public should be required to pay for park space so your kids wont attack them?
The latter argument not being as facetious as it sounds given that the incidence of assault and battery as a proportion of the population is actually higher than that of dog attacks as a proportion of the dog population...

david said...

You are right on your first two points and I stand corrected. In my part of the world, dog owners demand free public parks for their dogs and 99% dont give a damn if it displaces children, seniors or other humans that need parkspace.

Your second point isnt faceitous, its absurd and as not a valid comparison to make. Though many dog owners see their dogs as children and partners and I've gotten used to them demanding that the public provide parkspace for them because of that sentiment.

Besides, most taxations systems work so that when you and I get old and are unable to afford healthcare, there are younger taxpayers who pay the bills. When your dog starts paying taxes, then you can make your stupid argument.

iiq374 said...

dog owners demand free public parks for their dogs and 99% dont give a damn if it displaces children, seniors or other humans that need parkspace

Of course I would have to ask whether they are demanding more parks in proportion than the rates they pay? (realising that even if you don't have a specific dog levy where you are that "public" paying for parks who are dog owners would probably like those parks to admit dogs).

Although my third point was somewhat absurd (intentionally) I would still maintain that it is not so much more absurd than what people think the "public" should pay for in terms of their own children and responsibility.

david said...

man, your analogy is dumb-ass, but standard for a dog owner.

your dog has absolutely no rights, despite your attempt to attribute them to your dog. and you question people's rights to public spaces b/c you obviously hate kids.

you're selfish, greedy, ignorant (typical traits for urban dog owners!)

iiq374 said...

and you question people's rights to public spaces b/c you obviously hate kids.

No - actually I like kids (given that we are currently trying for one would kind of indicate that). And kids generally like dogs. It is typically only ignorant people that find otherwise.

I also wasn't attributing rights to my dog. I was questioning the removal of my rights (as a person, and as a taxpayer, and as a rates payer).

If 20% of the money going into the purchase and maintenance of public parks is coming from "public" that want those parks available to dogs - then around 20% of the park space should be so provided.

You're selfish, greedy and ignorant if you want other peoples money to pay for parks with limitations that they don't want but you do.

In addition I raise the ignorant tag due to the fact that people are more dangerous to other people than dogs - despite the general fear to the contrary.