Comments

Menkit Prince

Thu, 2009-06-18 03:37

Lots of interesting, intelligent, ridiculous, funny, thought-provoking comments here. On the one hand I can understand the side of dog guardians that Sheila appears to be the only advocate for. Her suggestion to simply go to the owner of the barking dog and enquire as to the problem and offer help in a neighbourly way is good however some people are not reasonable, as we know. Then what? I think the kind of dog barking everyone is talking about here Sheila is the kind of incessant, neurotic, repetitive barking that does drive people mad. A happy dog doesn't need to bark at all, unless there is a strange sound and that shouldn't be for more than a short time. If a dog is distressed from being alone, or not having needs met, that anxiety is transmitted through the sound and picked up by anyone in the vicinity and is a stressor to all. Animals in the wild hardly make any sound at all except when they are trying to find each other, alert each other to danger, or to a good food find. I live in the rainforest and it's very quiet here even though I am surrounded by lots of species. Dogs shouldn't need to bark hardly at all. Domesticating dogs and cats (feral animals) is a totally unnatural activity but that is what we have done, along with wrecking the country with cows and sheep overgrazing and deforesting our land. So much of our life is totally unnatural. Look at what we eat for crying out loud. Locking a dog that is designed to be running free inside a house is totally unnatural. No wonder they bark. They are bored. It's true that people have different levels of sensitivity to sound - any sound. I fall into the ultra-sensitive camp, unfortunately, being particularly sensitive to traffic noise (having spent my entire childhood raised on the Princes Highway in Sydney with my bedroom at the front of the house), loud music (especially that mind-numbing, stupefying dorff music that people around here like to play on the weekend till 4am) and dog barking. I also don't like the sound of television, radio, people whistling or singing songs to themselves in supermarkets or music in general. Having said that I am also an animal-lover. A dog would not be my choice of a companion because of the damage they do to wildlife in this area - same with a cat. Quiet Tasmania you seem to hate dogs and this may be pushing Sheila's buttons. To describe dog guardians as being selfishly indulgent is extreme. If you were to try and understand where she was coming from in terms of the emotional benefits that dogs bring to their guardians you may be a little less intolerant of what appears to you to be perhaps sentimentality? She did after all only take the dogs on because her mother could no longer care for them. In so doing, she saved their lives most likely. These animals wanted to live and not be killed in a shelter. I would probably do the same even though I'm not a 'dog' person. Not only that but dogs are wonderful beings who love to play, love to make others happy in general and just love to love. What about their redeeming qualities such as saving lives? So to have the motivation of wanting to help the dog FIRST and foremost may lead to a solution with your neighbours faster than feeling selfishly irritated and wanting to help your own needs first and foremost. However, failing that there are a number of steps you can take. As for councils not being willing to act, it depends on your location. My son lives in the Tweed Shire and he has a dog who barks when left alone. A neighbour has complained twice to the council resulting in a fine to my son of $1000. I spoke to the neighbour and feel compassion for him. He told me that my son had gone away for a whole weekend and left the dog outside. As a result the dog barked non-stop day and night and the neighbour could not sleep. Being a reasonable person he didn't want to be unfair to the dog or my son but what to do? The thought occurred to him to open the gate which would have resulted in the dog's death for sure. A less reasonable person would have thrown a poisoned bone to him. My advice to my son was to find the dog a home where she could be free to run since she is a kelpie/rhodesian ridgeback hunting dog, not meant to be couped up inside a tiny yard or worse, inside a house with blinds drawn all day while my son was at work! (kids!!???!!) Sheila you have to understand how desperate people can become when deprived of sleep and a life. That is what this thread is about and something needs to be done. It's not about needing a totally noise-free existence and being incapable of associating with other creatures. I don't think the solution is to build expensive sound-proof dwellings either because dogs need access to fresh air and as soon as you close windows and doors you create a totally unnatural existence for them. So much for allowing natural behaviours. The suggestion to use 1080 on barking dogs was tactless and provocative. Where is the concern for the dog? 1080 is a gruesome way for any animal to die and I am dead against (excuse the pun) using it on indigenous animals. What is wrong with humans that we can't leave native animals enough space to have a life anyway? Why are we so fascinated with the use of toxic chemicals as a solution to any problem? The whole problem is caused by humans, as James said, who refuse to train their dogs. A mere 2 hours with a trainer and poof! problem gone. It may be worth your peace of mind to pay for that for your neighbour if they don't have the funds. Certainly a lot easier and cheaper than moving house. In the event of the guardian refusing even training for the dog, in the worst case scenario, instead of having the dog killed I'd say the lesser of two evils would be to take out it's vocal chords. I'm not in favour of removing organs in general but if it was me I'd rather be alive without a voice than not alive. So accusing peace-lovers of causing the death of a barking dogs by euthanisation is not right. I hope that the two main antagonists of this thread can give a little leeway to each other and learn something here. Thanks James for allowing this thread. I think it may help many people. We should always try to find solutions that are loving and not come from a place of anger if possible. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:40

Al Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physic, University of Calorado Boulder in United States, has stated that in 780 years there will be only one square meter for each person on the planet's land at our rate of population growth! It is clear that this human density will never be achieved as our ecology will be depleted long before this!

The things that we feel good about, such as family size, immigration, good health etc will be the factors that actually make our species come to their conclusion even faster. The things we don't want, such as zero population growth, high mortality etc, the factors that will help us in the long term.

We will not make it to the next millenium! Is the human race so blinded that they are heading faster towards mass suicide?

Albert Bartlett: "Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way
aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"

Our Government keeps adding more people to Australia. Do they fail to understand the exponential functions of growth, or are they just going ahead "business as usual" until the next election knowing that they are contributing to our final demise?

Professor Bartlett's web site

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:37

There's plenty of constructive ideas at http://www.quietas.net/Page51.html where there's also an invitation to comment by email.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:31

Tigerquoll, there's a limit throughout the land of two dogs per suburban dwelling. More than two requires the issuance of a kennel licence which may be denied if anyone within 200 metres of the proposed kennel objects. This distance should be raised to two kilometres.

I'd welcome details of your success. It's usually the tormented victim of barking who has to move out.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:25

Subject was "The public have been fed so many lies!" - JS The public have been fed so many lies, pseudo-science and greenwashing to jusify the "cull" of Majura's kangaroo population, under the smoke-screen of environmental concern. All our native animals are under stress from population growth (humans), urbanisation, heavy cattle grazing, invasive weeds, land clearing and feral animals. These are the threats to the legless lizards, the golden sun moths and the native grasses. Kangaroos DO NOT over breed their habitat or threaten other native animals! The "experts" who drew the conclusions that kangaroos are a threat are being paid to produce these results! This is not robust or independent science. Do the public really believe that Jon Stanhope and Defence are poignantly worried about the native grasses and critters in them? Are they environmental extremists now? Of course not! There are plans for this area at Majura, just like they killed over 500 kangaroos at Belconnen that were "starving" but weren't, because they wanted the land! They would have no qualms about driving tractors and bulldozers through this area for roads or buildings. There has been no consideration for what Defence use the land for, or what they intend to do with it. We need some honesty, some transparency, some compassion and respect for non-human creatures. Our Colonial mentality still exists today that made the Tasmanian Tiger extinct. Extinction is not an event but a process, and our kangaroo killing industry and this lethal "management" is totally shameful to Australia, and we even persecute and hate our own symbols of Australia.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 18:10

I think winding up the barking on barking would be to turn the boat around across Bass Strait just as you've laid sight on the Tasy coast! The discussion has drawn out some good issues. One anecdote I can offer for the 'RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT' case is that as a victim of a neighbour's dog barking (6 months) , I have gone legal and look like having the second fine imposed that will finally send the tenant with her three barking dogs over the back fence, packing. A final article I found in the paper for the 'RIGHT TO BARKING' case: Two jailed over 'barking dog murder' ======================== SOURCE: AAP, June 10, 2009 'A SYDNEY woman who stabbed to death a man who complained about her barking dog will spend at least 10 years behind bars for his murder. Joseph Henry Durrant, 47, was returning home from alcohol-fuelled Australia Day celebrations in the early hours of January 27, 2007, when he made a comment about a noisy dog in Phyllis Street, Mt Pritchard. The father of three was then fatally attacked with a knife. In April this year, Katrina Megan Whitmore, 26, was found guilty of Mr Durrant's murder, with a New South Wales Supreme Court jury concluding she caused the fatal stab wound. Her brother Frederick Whitmore, 35 - who was due to face a separate murder trial - pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams sentenced Katrina Whitmore to a maximum of 14 years and Frederick Whitmore to a maximum of seven years. With time already served, Katrina Whitmore will be eligible for parole on February 21, 2019, with Frederick Whitmore first eligible for release on September 14, 2011.' Dogged justice. Woof woof!

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:22

I think it may time to wind down this discussion. I am the last person to want to stop discussion on any question, particularly one that so that affects the lives of so many amongst us, however the discussion seems to have turned into one that is largely one between too intractable extremes, in which neither side is listening to the other. In normal life, it is accepted that if we want to resolve conflicts, both sides need to be prepared to consider the other point of view and be willing to make compromises to accommodate the needs of the other side, but that seems to have been lost on many participants in this discussion. Whilst I am also very bothered by dog barking, I am disappointed that some amongst us are so ready to dismiss proposals that I think could go a long way towards solving the proposal. That proposal was that Governments or Councils set up free or subsidised programs to train dogs or walk them during the day. That is just on of many possible suggestions I could have offered. However, this suggestion has been dismissed on the grounds that essentially accept the free market 'every man for himself' dogma that determines nearly all of our policy agendas these days. One purpose of this site is to challenge the dysfunctional political and economic system we now live under, not just to try to deal with its symptoms, of which I believe the widespread incidence of dog barking is. This web site is also not the place for who want the needs of other members of society to be entirely disregarded so that their own (or their pets) can be met. I still think that dog barking is an important issue and I would encourage constructive discussion that aims to arrive at solutions, but that does not seem to be happening.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 15:48

Thankyou Tigerquoll, for a good find. I appreciate your interest and I'm grateful for your comments.

The catch with this legislation lies in that seemingly innocuous word "unreasonably." This damned word, along with others elsewhere like it such as "excessively" - is undefined.

This means that nobody knows what the boundaries of tolerance are. It leaves the so-called "enforcement authorities" floundering for actionable standards. It leaves the complainant without firm criteria. An eventual standard can be set by a particular court in a particular matter - but by then it's prettymuch too late. It's all way too sloppy by far.

The impact of Noise is extremely subjective person-to-person, so setting actionable boundaries is problematic. What annoys me tonight when I'm lying in bed unable to sleep won't annoy me tomorrow night when I'm so tired I sleep right through it.

When I was a kid in Suburban Sydney everyone intuitively respected his neighbours' rights to live in peace and quiet.

That consideration has substantially dissolved nowadays, hence all the troubles.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 14:33

A quick Google of 'Noise Control' finds an ordnance all the way from Maplewood Planning Department, in Minnesota, mid-west USA. It relates to noise, which is at the crux of this dog barking debate. Check the link: http://mn-maplewood.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=345 Some key features which I like are notably: 1. It is comprehensive..."(a) No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value." 2. It covers the period 7pm to 7am Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. 3. It sets a proximity limit of 350 feet (100 odd metres) - I think that would allow for a distance of 4 standard house blocks from the barking dog so as to reduce the volume of the barking to a tolerable background level. Nearer neighbours would be affected. 4. It is enforced by the police. This would in itself cause angst because it wouldn't take long for the police to get frustrated by the number of call outs as to force politicians to change the legislation to make owning a dog onerous. 5. It attracts criminal penalties - US$700 (very close to the AUD$1000 I previously espoused), and..bonus...even imprisonment! The best part is: "(d) Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitute a separate offense." The barking problem will be solved in weeks - many owners will be financially forced to put down their barking pooch.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 13:38

ANY form of subsidy to dog owners is RIGHT OFF the radar screen. It must NEVER happen!

Australia's dog plague and all the suffering that goes with it is significantly out of control as it is - and it's FAR worse in America, the nation which habitually abuses its freedoms more than any other.

Instead, the reverse should happen - that dog owners be FORCED, not only to pay for EVERY expense associated with keeping their animals cruelly incarcerated, but to pay EVERY expense incurred as a consequence of their ignorant, reckless stupidity. I refer, for example, to ALL the costs incurred, and for the fullest possible recompense to the family whose head was killed when he ran off the road on his way to work because of the tiredness brought about by the previous night's barking of his neighbour's dog. This is just ONE ghastly example of the innumerable invisible tragedies and suffering associated with the keeping of dogs. There's millions of lesser examples - EVERY DAY!

Shall I speak now of the maulings, the disfigurations, the DEATHS - of those attacked by the so-called domestic dog? Even when a local dog killed his little girl her father said "Oh, it was just an accident!" Like hell it was. Because of his ignorant, selfish, mindless stupidity, the dog owner had SET IT UP!

Dog ownership is nearly always an indulgence, and an extremely selfish one at that. I don't expect anyone else to subsidise any of my few INESSENTIAL indulgences such as chocolate, and I'm not going to subsidise the cost of my neighbour's backyard swimming pool, either. If he wants such indulgences, then HE can pay for them! Fully!

Those dependent on their dog for their irrational source of narcissistic supply should pay all the costs associated with their damned fool drug addiction. Don't look to me for one cent of those costs - I've managed my life for 70 years without having needed a dog for even one second.

Except in quite rare circumstances, dogs are NOT ESSENTIAL.

I admire a well-trained farm dog's ability to herd sheep, and I'm awed by the astounding sensitivity of a customs' dog to sniff illicit drugs, and I recognise that the salary of a dog that keeps its vision-impaired owner less helpless is low, and I can accept the desire of the elderly for live-in companionship that's therapeutic - but beyond this, NO.

The reality is that dogs, by their nature, are unsuitable creatures for city and suburban conditions.

Our society will eventually realise this, but in the meantime it's as loopy as a hula hoop.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 12:48

Would we want heavy industry encouraged in Australia to improve our balance of trade, or prefer these be done elsewhere, import them at high cost and leave our natural environment healthier and intact? I am not advocating encouraging China to destroy more of its natural environment, but in a selfish way I prefer the Three Gorges Dam is there than here. It has become the world’s largest hydro-electric power station, but flooded important cultural heritage and displaced some 1.24 million people. Containerised seafreight into Melbourne has long taken the deep water route around the Mornington Peninsula. Ecological standards and tests must prevail to ensure no cost cutting short cuts are dredged through shallow marine environments of high conservation value. Consumers of imports need to pay more for the higher costs of getting them to market. This will enable local producers to better compete. The challenge is to separate inflation on imports from pushing up prices on local production. Economic sustainability doesn't require endless growth year on year. What's wrong with a static profit year on year? The tests of sustainable consumerism should be triple bottom line health - social health, economic health and ecological health. Push one too far and you downgrade the others.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 10:52

The inference to draw from this response is that the RSPCA doesn't care. The RSPCA website in Australia is at http://www.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/mission.html It states its mission is "to prevent cruelty to animals by actively promoting their care and protection." It states its vision is "to be the leading authority in animal care and protection." The RSPCA's objectives are listed as: "To prevent cruelty to animals by ensuring the enforcement of existing laws at federal and state level. To procure the passage of such amending or new legislation as is necessary for the protection of animals. To develop and promote policies for the humane treatment of animals that reflect contemporary values and scientific knowledge. To educate the community with regard to the humane treatment of animals. To engage with relevant stakeholders to improve animal welfare. To sustain an intelligent public opinion regarding animal welfare. To operate facilities for the care and protection of animals." The RSPCA's policy in relation to kangaroo killing states: "RSPCA Australia believes that the issue of whether kangaroos and wallabies should continue to be killed under a sustainable use policy should be reviewed by both federal and state/territory governments. Continuing research is needed to determine the impact of current culling practices on kangaroo populations and their environment. "RSPCA Australia believes that any measures taken to reduce kangaroo populations should first be proven to be necessary (through a proper consideration of the reasons for control). They must be conducted humanely and be under the direct supervision of the appropriate government authorities (as part of an approved kangaroo management program). Effective monitoring and auditing of such programs is vital to ensure that these conditions are met. There are a number of aspects of the current management of kangaroos that do not conform to these conditions, such as: Large numbers of kangaroos are shot inhumanely every year, particularly under the non-commercial system. Each time a female kangaroo is shot her dependent joey is either killed by the shooter or will die as a result of predation, dehydration or starvation. The RSPCA has serious concerns about the suffering caused by shooting females with pouch young. The process of setting quotas for killing kangaroos does not relate population reduction directly to damage mitigation. Kangaroo management plans are now treating kangaroos as a sustainable resource available for commercial use, rather than making a decision for control as a result of examining the welfare of kangaroos or their impact on the environment. Until these issues have been properly addressed, questions remain about the humaneness of kangaroo shooting and the basis for current government policies on the management and killing of kangaroos." SOURCE: http://kb.rspca.org.au/?View=entry&EntryID=77 Clearly, the RSPCA responses above are anathema to the Society's raison d'etre. CEO, Heather Neil, should be publicly held to account for the responses above and accordingly asked to explain why the RSPCA has deliberately abbrogated its legal and moral obligations in relation to this mass slaughter - 'The Fitzgibbon Massacre of 9th May 2009'.

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2009-06-16 19:44

Here in Australia, until the 1980s, we were able to produce our own cars, televisions, clothing, fabrics, shoes and many other consumer goods. What has happened? Now we are a nation of consumers, depending on imports from overseas, quite often from China. Of course, we need to deepen Port Phillip Bay to ensure all the imported goods reach the CBD! Free trade with Asia has produced unemployment and "Australia made" products are more often than not produced overseas or have imported ingredients. Australia is being bastardised by imports and our population is growing but we are relying on foreign producers to prop our economy up.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-06-16 14:48

Indeed dogs can be very successfully trained not to bark. A professional, experienced canine-trainer can help a dog and its owner, in less than 2 hours, and everyone within hearing distance will reap the benefits. The cost of training has to be borne by the owners. I don't believe that the wider community would respond well to subsidising dog management, particularly if their choice is to keep domestic cats. Most of us are flat out prioritising our disposable income to absolute necessities like health insurance, house insurance, rates, (incidentally, all of us already subsidise dog management through our rates), food, electricity, rent/mortgages. Many budget conscious people wisely forego luxuries, so they can meet their daily financial commitments. It's just like anything else. If people want to keep dogs, run a car, go to the gymnasium, etc., then they must budget accordingly, or refrain from the indulgence. Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on what has been a life and soul-destroying family health issue. Whilst I am sympathetic to the rights of people to keep a pet, the major consideration must be public health, duty of care, and personal responsibility.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2009-06-16 02:00

I think this already lengthy discussion may be starting to go around in circles. If I am to be labeled hypersensitive because I am traumatised by the prolonged sound of dogs barking, then at least two other established contributors to this web site must also be labeled as such. What is also clear is that if those on either or both sides of the discussion adopt extreme positions, then a satisfactory resolution for all sides is unlikely to be achieved. I think in the circumstances we have found ourselves, it is reasonable to expect dogs to be trained to bark only intermittently and not for lengthy periods, except where there is good cause. I have heard of dogs being trained not to bark more than three times on any single occasion. That's less than ideal for me, but I think I could cope with that. Of course, this still may not be satisfactory for others troubled by dog barking. And, as I have said before, I think it is reasonable for the broader community to help those with dogs by subsidising training or other services that could mitigate the barking problem.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:48

The rules of courteous debate include avoidance of personal attack and accurate interpretation of a differing point of view, which I believe Mr Sinnamon encourages on this forum. Firstly there has been no equation whatsoever between dogs and cigarettes. The equation is between dog noise (a scientifically acknowledged toxic pollutant) and another scientifically acknowledged human health hazard: second-hand cigarette smoke. Our local council is highly supportive about the matter of sleep deprivation from barking dogs and I understand their policy is moving towards zero tolerance as health claims are regularly reaching litigation. The road accident risks from drowsy driving by workers who are sleep-disturbed by noisy dogs are very real. This awareness is a good thing, and their intelligent attention to this important human health and safety subject is very much appreciated. The sound of neighbours brushing their teeth would not be a problem, because it is possible to mask low-level noise emissions with background music, or television. When a noise competes with the quiet enjoyment of someone's television, radio or family communications, or disturbs their sleep, then it is generally too loud and intrusive. The comment about parrots and other creatures is tedious and boring. I would never contend that dogs or any other animals have no right to exist. Sniffer dogs, police dogs, quiet house dogs that provide company for lonely people, and the well-trained dogs that assist sight-impaired are harmless creatures. It is the disgraceful lack of bark training, in tandem with the epidemic of children being bitten and torn to shreds by uncontrolled dogs, that is increasingly being debated. The comment about parrots, wind tunnels and vibrant colours would be hilarious if it wasn't so spiteful. Further, compressed foam industrial earplugs can and do cause tinnitus, particularly if the inner ear begins to sweat. If the writer of the above post has no formal ENT qualifications, then it is extremely unwise to post audiological advice. If someone follows that advice, and incorrectly applies such devices to their ears, the outcomes can be very serious. Tinnitus, and bleeding of the inner are just two complications. Provision of unqualified audiological advice on a public forum is most unwise. The repetitive, accusative application of the word "you" contained in the above post is unnecessarily hostile. I browsed Mr Sinnamon's site to learn about many interesting subjects. There's a "Sheila" theme to Mr Sinnamon's website. Does this mean that alternative opinions on all subjects, no matter how valid, or how life-impacting, will be responded with similar venom? With regard to the example of the motor neurone patient who was subjected to the cruelty of uncontrolled dog noise, the surviving spouse had one sad comment after reading the above post: what goes around comes around. The above post unfortunately carries an aggressive tone. It is unnecessarily cruel, it contains nothing that I understand to represent the best side of humanity, and is not at all in the spirit of intellectual debate.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:53

Australian anti-Noise websites generally inactive or not maintained are as follows:

1. Quiet Australia at http://quietaus.blogspot.com/ and its associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietAus/

2. Noise Tasmania at http://www.geocities.com/noisetas/

Peter Bright
Quiet Tasmania

www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:39

I'm aware of only three Australian anti-Noise, anti-barking websites.

These are my own comprehensive and sometimes updated website Quiet Tasmania at http://www.quietas.net and its supplementary and much shorter associated and regularly updated website Quiet Tasmania News at http://www.pebri.net

There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania/ where membership is immediate and posts are not moderated.

---o0o---

Mr Matthew Ridgeway of Melbourne has VODAAN (Victims of Domestic Animal Attacks and Noise) at http://www.geocities.com/vodaan/ however this is currently not maintained and enquirers are referred to Quiet Tasmania. Matthew's family was forced to relocate because his council refused to control neighbourhood barking.

Matty has an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vodaan/ which is currently maintained by Quiet Tasmania.

I'd welcome knowledge of any other Australian websites.

Peter Bright
Hobart

www.quietas.net

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:36

On noticing today's Quiet Tasmania post, anyone who is interested in browsing the recommended professional site could be particularly educated by absorbing the section: "The Harm Done". While on the site, anyone open to learning could also click on the Barking Dogs Forum, where true accounts of lives stolen by unwanted noise from dogs, and the resultant trail of family and human carnage, are posted for public information.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:07

As far as I can see, you seem to equate a dog with a cigarette. You appear to completely lack empathy for a fellow creature and you use your example of motor neurone disease as a reason to dominate all creatures except humans into silence and submission in the way you would expect a cigarette to be snuffed. I therefore cannot take your position seriously and I can imagine that your local council cannot either. You are not prepared to make any compromises but expect everyone and every other thing to do so. You are unwilling to call for better engineering or to militate against planners cramming us all in so close together that soon we will all require earmuffs to put up with our neighbours brushing their teeth. I fear that, in a world without dogs, you would simply shift your target to parrots or wind tunnels or vibrant colours. There may indeed be people who suffer from hypersensitivity to particular pitches and tones, but I think it takes a real neurotic to expect the rest of the world to be completely silent. You will, however, fit in well with the kinds of people who squash us all in together, who expect us to modify our behaviour to ludicrous extents. Give me a dog any day over an unreasonable human quoting the law. By the way, you can buy industrial ear plugs that don't melt in your ears or cause problems. I have used them in noisy situations myself. It is no big deal. Sheila Newman
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 07:54

Those struggling for knowledge and understanding of dog barking can do no better than explore the world's most comprehensive website on the subject. It's called barkingdogs and the address is http://www.barkingdogs.net/

There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 22:05

Local Government authorities can readily confirm that their most complained about environmental noise source is barking dogs. Running a close second (police records) - amplified music. Yes, agreed, most definitely - live and let live. The application of the super-sensitive argument as a justification for force-fed barking indicates a lack of kindness for those in our communities who are only asking for choice. It matters not who owns dogs, or who doesn't. What matters is the owners' intelligence, their unwillingness to let their pet impact adversely on neighbours, their unwillingness to permit their animal(s) to inadvertently force its way into the personal space of those who don't want it. Cigarettes once were the focus of enormous popularity and preponderance, but in the end, that didn't make tobacco consumption healthy or right. If dog folk aren't sensible enough to accept modern health research and warnings - then they might find themselves as unpopular as cigarette smokers. Edifying is the miniscule and qualified concession on lengthily sustained barking (in bold print too) for the motor neurone patient. Goodness, that's harsh. To round off, I don't want someone else's dog barking inside my house: no negotiation, no argument, and no amount of offender justification. And we don't want other people's damned amplified music, or any other uninvited scientifically designated pollution. The exclusion zone for dog noise, depending on the local topography, is several kilometres. I'm certainly not going to sound-proof our home to facilitate law-breakers. They can take their dogs and vamoose. If I wanted to live in a dog kennel, I'd pitch a tent at the local dogs' home, where the poor over-populated species are kindly "sheltered" until a bit further down the track they are "kindly" gassed. That says everything about the dog-loving community. The motor neurone patient couldn't even get the courtesy of a peaceful exit. (Well, not any degree of domestic quiet that would qualify as "sustained and lengthy").

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 19:43

Correct me if I am wrong, but the last post gives me the impression that the complainant believes it is reasonable to insist that barking NEVER be heard. I find that unreasonable. If there are laws that really ban all barking then, in my opinion, those laws ought to be changed. If such laws exist then I can see why they are not enforced. Bad laws are rarely enforced at this level because it creates too much bad feeling. If people are super-sensitive to barking then provisions should be made to protect them, but it is not fair on anyone to make it impossible for a dog to bark. That is an unreasonable demand. If dogs enjoy enormous popularity and preponderance, they must have something going for them. It would be an unwise law-maker who would ban any dog that barked within hearing of anyone who might complain. If I saw that complainers about dog barking demonstrated tolerance of a reasonable amount of barking, I would have plenty of time for them. But, if there are people out there who really think that their perceived need for total conformity to their demands should be met, no matter what the cost to the dog or its owner, then I would tend to describe their need as neurotic. If someone suffers from a hypersensitivity to barking per se, that is unfortunate. They really need sound-proofed homes and I would be supportive to the community paying for measures to soundproof for persons suffering a hypersensitivity. For a persons suffering from motor neurone disease, obviously one would expect the owner of a dog to go out of their way to stop some remarkable loud and and lengthily sustained nearby barking. However, people in the community are actually expected all the time to put up with problems they would not choose. Night shift workers have no right to stop builders and roadmakers from using drills and jack hammers, even if they go for days without sleep. Respectfully, I think a bit of perspective is lacking here and the reluctance to demand better engineering or reparations, makes me suspect the complainants simply don't have any feeling for dogs as living sentient creatures. The lack of kindness seems to be on the part of the people who want to stop dogs barking on all occasions rather than soundproof their environment or learn to live with a bit of noise from other creatures. By the way, I feel the same way about possums. Live and let live. I also find it extremely difficult to believe that dogs barking is the most common complaint. Where? Could you find and post the evidence for this assertion. In the ACT I have heard that the most common complaint is cruelty to animals. Sheila Newman - responsible for two dogs over 17 years with no complaints from any neighbour.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 18:39

It's really very simple. Trans-boundary barking is unacceptable if it is not wanted, and there can be no justification for it. For those who do not wish to have it inside their homes, certain laws have been promulgated that reflect earlier science decreeing dog noise as injurious, unhealthy, toxic pollution. There is no reasonable amount of cigarette smoke (despite smokers enjoying a social puff together, which is a form of quiet communication) that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of oil pollution that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of amplified music pollution. None of it can be justified. If someone wants to produce or live with the source of a pollutant, then that is their choice, no-one wants to deny them that choice, but they must 100% respect their neighbours, and contain their dog's noise so that it does not harm others. All we are asking for is choice. The choice whether we are subjected to the barking of someone else's dog, or whether we prefer a peaceful interior of our homes. We want our babies and infants to have their sleep, whenever nature intends. We want our sick and dying not to be cruelly distressed by the perceived "rights" of dog-owners and their animals to inhabit our personal space. We are entitled to live without dogs barking inside our homes, if that is our choice, and we certainly do not want to inflict harm on others by forcing our noise on them. I wonder how proponents of intrusive dog noise would feel, if someone parked a barking dog outside their bedroom window while they were dying of motor neurone disease, and the patient didn't have the muscle strength to ask for it to be quietened? Really. Those who do not want to listen to the social communication of barking dogs (contagious barking) are not bad people. Those who justify or permit uninvited barking against the will of receptors are increasingly being categorised as bullies. There are some highly reputable studies by qualified behavioural psychologists that confirm this type of human behaviour. Wouldn't it be much, much nicer, so much less shameful, in the short time that we all have to enjoy each other's support and friendship on this earth, to say "yes, we can do better", we can be considerate, we can be kind to each other. In this life I have met kind people, and I have met clever people. Kind has always been much, much better.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 17:48

This comment is intended to show sympathy for your case but to suggest an entirely different approach to the fault/punishment one you appear to be suggesting. According to my analysis, the problem is not 'barking' but 'noise'. The problem is caused by faulty building and planning which puts people close together but does not protect them from noise by building. I would suggest that the planners and builders should be made to adequately soundproof buildings and, where that is impossible, they should not build them so close. Where buildings are already up and occupied, then sound-proofing should be done remedially by the council in cases where people cannot stand various forms of noise. This puts the onus onto the architects and planners to adhere to a rigorous standard which would include protection for people who are particularly sensitive to particular kinds of noise. The other approach, which puts neighbours in conflict and sometimes helpless dogs' lives and social expression in jeopardy - whatever the reasonableness of the complainant or the defendant - is stressful and it sounds as if it is a no-win in most cases. I wish you luck in your pursuit of a noise-free existence, but not if it means that people will be even more removed from association with other creatures. My reason for preferencing association with other creatures is that I think humans who live only with humans become insensitive to the other creatures in the world and allow the built environment to exclude them and to engulf more and more of the natural environment. I don't think it is normal or rational to live in isolation from other creatures, although I realise it happens more and more. Sheila Newman

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 17:38

Hi, Quiet Tasmania, Just looking at your first post again. Here is a statement I find problematic: "Dog owners have the legal obligation of keeping their dogs quiet yet they refuse to do it, Why? Because they don't want to." For me this is problematic because it attributes motive, where usually motive could not be known and where, I would have thought, the motive you attribute is unlikely. I think that the motive is far more likely to be that the dog owners (a) are unable to keep their dogs quiet at all times (b) may not think it reasonable to keep their dogs absolutely quiet I think that you can establish that dog owners do not always keep their dogs quiet, but I don't think that you attribute a motive in the absence of individual cases and careful dialogue. You make a further attribution of motive which I believe is also faulty: "Councils have the legal obligation of enforcing the barking control laws yet they refuse to do it. Why? Because they don't want to." I think that you would find that you got a different answer if you actually asked them. I think you should be capable of thinking through a number of problems which might diminish council ability and willingness to enforce laws to the letter. How quiet are dogs supposed to be? Are humans also supposed to be as quiet or is it just the dogs? Sheila Newman

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 15:45

It could also be written this way: Any person who supplies comments and opinions without medical or first-hand experience pertaining to the psychological damage of people with unreasonable expectations of owners and dogs, simultaneously (and/or conveniently) ignoring what receptors sadly describe as their human rights to live with a member of another species and the dogs' rights to reasonable expression and communication with other dogs, is not only part of the problem, but directly contributes to deteriorating feelings of worthlessness and perpetuated personal abuse. Whilst I can understand that a continuously barking dog is problematic, I have not experienced such a problem in any place where I have lived or with any dog I have known, although I have experienced exhuberant dogs barking horribly loudly for short periods of time and I know how nervous that makes me that the dog may become the target of local protest. I do expect people to put up with noise from dogs that are communicating excitedly for the following reasons: ball chasing, intruders, social occasions, communication with other dogs. I think it is unreasonable and cruel to expect people to impose total silence on healthy animals. Does Quiet Tasmania permit dogs to engage in social communication or does it expect almost total silence? What does Quiet Tasmania have to say when an elderly or gormless person is not able to find the money, time or transport to attend 'dog training' sessions? What do they have to say when pressure exerted on the owner means that the dog finishes up being euthanised? Sheila Newman

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-06-14 14:31

I agree that the opinion about Sheila's contributions should have been put as "Sheila's attitude is typical of the wider problem". That way, it will not be seen as a personal attack upon a contributor to this forum, but, instead, an attempt to address the wider issues at hand.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-06-14 13:19

(Although I am from Brisbane and not from either Kyogle and Tweed Shires) I agree there should be another rally against the Rally and a good many more until plans to stage this obscenity are abandoned.

However, it takes a good deal of time, effort and money to organise each rally. If you are in a position to lend a hand, as well as to attend the next rally, I am sure that the No Rally group would be more than happy to hear from you. Some contact details can be found in the No Rally Group's "What you can do" page.

You can phone the No Rally Group on 0438 357 452 or the Caldera Environment Centre on (02) 66-721-121.

The No Rally Group's e-mail address is no.rally[AT]yahoo.com

I don't give much for anyone's chances of being able to meet Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to discuss this issue.

Firstly, I think the chances of him wanting to help would be slim.

Secondly, as it is somewhat removed from his own direct responsibilities, it would be easy for him to fob you off.

In my opinion, efforts would be better directed towards people who are in a position to decide the outcome one way or the other, or who are likely to be sympathetic and who could use their public profile to win public support for your cause.

In the former category, I would include Peter Garrett, the Federal Minister for the Environment, any member of the NSW Parliament, and local councillors. In the latter category, I would include Independents and Greens in and, possibly, Liberal or National MPs in the NSW and federal Parliaments.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 12:41

Although being a member of this courteous forum, I haven't been on the site since making a comment on someone else's well-considered opinion about the human health damage from unwanted noise from dogs. Actually, I didn't learn how to initiate a new post, apart from simply using the "reply" button, as is the case with this. Whoever briefly opined about Sheila's contributions, might have said, "Sheila's attitude is typical of the wider problem". Having said that, whoever made that brief observation on Sheila's views, echoed my own thoughts on her post which I found to be personally upsetting on behalf of the many distressed people (such as my 82 yr. old mother) who are pushed into very serious conditions of anxiety and depression due to force-fed noise from dogs. Possibly the reason I didn't learn how to re-visit the forum was because respect (or lack of it) for the serious human health matter of noise-induced anxiety and depression is not something I am not interested in reading, particularly from tertiary-educated contributors. Any person who supplies comments and opinions without medical or first-hand experience pertaining to the psychological damage of noise from barking dogs, simultaneously (and/or conveniently) ignoring what receptors sadly describe as their human rights to quiet inside their homes, is not only part of the problem, but directly contributes to deteriorating feelings of worthlessness and perpetuated personal abuse. Not only do receptors feel harmed by the dog noise, their feelings of worthlessness and abuse are sorrowfully compounded when fellow human beings indicate through wordy and sometimes biased, uninformed writings, that their intellectual support is by choice limited, and therefore not available. Experience has shown that the rightful academics who are expertly trained to comment accurately on the commonly documented human health damage from dog noise, are qualified health professionals.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 10:11

Hi, I am just wondering when the next rally against the rally may be taking place. It seems that the powers that be are not hearing us. Perhaps we could arrange to meet up with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to discuss this issue.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-06-14 09:49

Labor's caucus rules seem to be modeled on the constitution of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. To a small extent it is defensible for members of parties to be bound on important questions by a majority vote. On some occasions it may even be reasonable to require that members of caucus not air their differences publicly, but the Labor Party has taken this to a stupid extreme. Clearly, the caucus rules have been grossly abused to prevent accountability and discussion. In fact, I very much doubt that proceedings of the caucus are kept as secret as they would have us believe. Of course they would be kept secret from the public and ordinary Labor Party members, but not from the powerful vested interests that Labor caucuses habitually serve these day.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 00:00

Below is an example of a comment we would normally not publish. Although it is tame by comparison with the abuse encountered on some parts of the Internet, it is, nevertheless, a personal attack and adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Also, it would help if people making comments would include an e-mail address in the appropriate so that they can be contacted. (Comment was originally posted at 2009-06-07 01:41 +1000.) - JS Without doubt Sheila is part of the noise problem.

admin

Sat, 2009-06-13 14:35

Hi. I’m Joan Webster, author of "The Complete Bushfire Safety Book" (RRP $34.95) (Random House) and "Essential Bushfire Safety Tips" (RRP AU$29.95) (CSIRO)

So much bunk has been talked about bunkers. One, faxed with fervour through all the media, was designed by a NSW solicitor. A flimsy timber trapdoor set in a timber verandah. An ember could ignite the verandah. If this happened before entry into the bunker, no-one could get in. If after, no-one could get out.

Commercially available concrete cylinders are advertised as being airtight when closed. Shelterers would suffocate. One is designed to be buried below 900mm of earth. How then could one enter it from the top? Is the 900 mm of earth to be shored up to keep the entrance clear? How? And how not create a perfect lodging place for tumbling, burning debris?

A refuge room of whatever kind needs to be well away from the house and reached by a vegetation-free path. It needs to be constructed with fire rated, insulated, reinforced concrete walls and floor, have a roof secured with cyclone clips, an outer metal-mesh screen protecting a fire-rated door and sheltered on 3 sides by a 2 m radiant heat shield, about 5 metres from
its exit.

Inside, it needs:

  • a small reinforced spy-window
  • pure wool blankets and drinking water
  • ventilation

However, scientists have not yet discovered a system to provide both protection from smoke and spark entry and ventilation.

Probably the best use for a bunker is for emergency shelter of the aged, frail and very young, and for storage of precious possessions. Householders really wanting a bunker, should be advised to check the proposed design with the CSIRO Division of Building Research and check their site for suitability with a senior officer of the CFA’s Community Safety Department. Those who have enough money to construct a bunker would do much better to put it into protection for the house, into window shutters, eliminating the roof/ceiling space, building-in the sub-floor and installing low-flow roof sprinklers.

You must realise that while sheltering in a bunker, you cannot know what embers may be doing inside the house.

See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives", which disputes some of the content of this article and comments and "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end".

Joan Webster
A.F.P.A. Community Safety award 1990
Author of:
Essential Bushfire Safety Tips (Random House 2001, CSIRO 2008)
The Complete Bushfire Safety Book (Random House 2000)
In and About Parliament (Parliamentary Library of Victoria 2000)
The Complete Australian Bushfire Book (Thomas Nelson 1986 Penguin 1989)
Gate Crashed (MacMillan 1976)
Manuscript Assessment Service, Mentoring, Effective Writing courses.

Email: jwebster[AT]castlemaine.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-06-12 11:18

However hard the people of Wonthaggi fought, they were NEVER listened to! The ABS predict that Melbourne will have about 7 million people by 2050 at our rate of population growth. Watershed Victoria, the group opposing the desal plant, haven't factored in our forced and rising population as a factor in our water usage! At this rate, we will have desalination plants dotted along our coastline. My email to them on this matter was ignored. There are few people who seem to be able to draw the dots between our current problems of water shortages, congestion, pollution. GHG emissions, price rises, housing stress etc is due largely because of our artificially forced population growth! The HERD instinct is doing its job - again!

Daisy U (not verified)

Thu, 2009-06-11 22:37

The people at the ABC seem to be victims of their own bias. They actually believe that they should report the news according to the probability of a particular outcome, which they then make almost inevitable! This is a frightening failure to promote democracy and choice by providing information. Surely the letter writer (or the person who does the dictation) knows that both parties are just hacks for big business? "The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view. Whilst not discounting the views or policies of the other parties and independent candidates, coverage in respect to such parties and candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. The Policies also note that the ABC reserves the right to withhold free broadcast time to political parties, including those not currently represented in the Parliament concerned, on the basis of the measure of demonstrated public support for the party." I noticed as well that the letter-writer, Kirsten MacLeod, says the ABC judged that "population growth" was among issues that "were not of news value at the time, and hence detailed coverage was not warranted." This comment really seems to indicate ideological blindness on the part of the ABC because they incessantly report on population growth in the most unvaried booster fashion. But they cannot see that the public must have the right to hear the other side and that responsible journalism would sheet home the responsibility for population grwoth and its consequences to the Bligh gov. And as if the ABC covered much at all that was newsworthy or sought any depth to views. I agree with tyou that interviewing Captain Bly's hubby was a ridiculous conceit and waste of public time. With friends like the ABC, who needs enemies? Please keep

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-06-11 02:09

Check out this astonishingly nasty editorial from Rupert Murdoch's Australian:

Bob Brown should think again before he decides to sue

JUST this once, Bob Brown should stop making a martyr of himself. On Monday, the Greens senator told the world he would lose his Senate seat if Forestry Tasmania bankrupted him over $240,000 he owes in legal fees. And - what a surprise - environmental activists immediately rallied to his cause. Pensioners promised to bake cakes and Dick Smith said he would see what he could do to help. Perhaps Senator Brown was surprised by promises of assistance, or perhaps it was what he expected, given the years he has spent cultivating his image as a fearless fighter for forests.

Not satisfied with having a personally ruinous bill imposed upon Bob Brown, The Australian would presumably have Bob Brown accept bankruptcy alone without accepting help from others and being thrown out of the Senate for having courageously stood up for forests which the Tasmanian Government is willing to have destroyed. The editorial continues:

But whatever his expectations, in ensuring the debate is all about him, Senator Brown avoids explaining what this matter actually involves -the way activists attempt to use the courts to impose their opinions on everybody else. Senator Brown took Forestry Tasmania to court to stop logging in Tasmania's Wielangata Forest, which supposedly threatens the habitats of two endangered birds and one beetle. The case took four years to complete, ending last year when a panel of High Court judges denied Senator Brown permission to appeal to the full court. The decision meant he was stuck with Forestry Tasmania's costs.

Tough. Every government agency and private business that has faced environmentalists whose MO is to use the courts when parliament will not give them what they want is familiar with this sort of strategy. It is a lot easier to go to court when your business is not at stake and when somebody else will ultimately pick up the bill. If it wasn't so serious, this whole affair would be frivolous.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-06-11 01:28

There's some truth in this. Timber is the most sustainable of all building materials. Steel, concrete, and plastic can appear to be more sustainable, if we don't take inot account the fossil fuels consumed in their production, steel framed houses can be more vulnerable to bushfires than timber houses. Nevertheless civilisations that have not harvested timber sustainably have usually collapsed. Tese civileisation nclude: the Ancient Mayans, the Chaco Anasazi, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans, the Easter Islanders. Australia seems headed in the same direction.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-10 17:24

Why do people think that logging of a forest is the end of the story. Biology regenerates - that is its very nature. Australian's of the present rightfully should take it upon themselves to ensure that biology maintains the ability to regenerate - this includes maintaining healthy ecosystems. But that does not then mean that logging is somehow evil. In deed native forestry and associated timber production is about as natural a system as you can get; miles ahead of food production, mining, energy production, etc - and yet humans need these activites and resultant products for the lifestyles they demand. In the knowledge that native forest in Australia is managed sustainably, I would rather have a timber power pole than concrete, timber house frame than steel, timber furniture than plastic, wood fireplace than coal-fired power. Why do people not realise that when they say no to logging (in general) they are instead saying yes to using up more of the earth's NON-renewable resources.

Maryland Wilson (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-10 13:45

In 2006, I complained to Ministers John Lenders and Peter Batchelor about their staff and money cuts to DSE, which has resulted in a decline of welfare and health standards of native animals, and a climate hostile to wildlife. DSE reflects this decline and lack of concern for the welfare and health of native animals in their everyday operations. It is pitiful to see the rapidly diminishing state of wildlife in Victoria. According to The Australian newspaper, a million native animals perished in the 2009 February bushfires. Concerns about this tragic loss of biodiversity and ecosystems is not reflected in DSE. Nor is any concern shown in the human-centric Parks Victoria which ignores wildlife completely, as their mission is Healthy Park for Healthy people. Devilbend is the Jewel of the Mornington Peninsula. Our fauna depend on being able to migrate between genetically diverse populations, so Devilbend must be managed as a central core habitat link to the whole of the Peninsula. Native fauna need genetic diversity and variability to ensure their survival. Continuous, inter- connecting corridors as bio-links to existing areas of safe haven are fundamental to preserving biodiversity and connect fragmented areas to prevent extinctions Extinction is a process, not an event. If you have it within your power to do all possible to prevent further extinctions, why wouldn’t you? DSE and PARKS Victoria fail to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and known endangered species. Maryland Wilson- President Australian Wildlife Protection Council

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-10 11:15

A Senator who puts his time and money into something he believes in should not have to pay the bills out of his own pocket and possibly lose his place in the Senate! The State of Tasmania should be responsible for their forests and protecting their own ecosystems, and commercial interests should not be left to decide their fates. There are endangered species at risk if logging continues. At a time our Federal government has declared its interest in increasing the amount of protected areas in Australia by 25% as a buffer against climate change, they should not be leaving this job to individuals to fund. Senator Bob Brown has put his own time and money where is mouth is, and he is one of the few leaders in Australia with a long term vision. Environmental protection is in everybody's interests, ultimately, and it would be a great loss to lose someone like Senator Bob Brown and the Green's leadership, not to mention Wielangta Forest, because he was forced to pay this massive amount and risk bankruptcy. The Federal Department of Environment should pay it because they are the responsible for our environment and have failed in their duty of care.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-06-09 18:16

You should perhaps review the practical application of your comment. Being a nation united under one flag, each and very one of us have the right to lay claim to our homeland, and subsequently we as individuals can NOT take sole claim or ownership for any particular part. With respect to the main point, as Australians, we feel it necessary to prevent you from screwing up our country, so that you can keep your precious little jobs for a couple of weeks. Citizens who make statements in support of extensive logging should have perhaps tried a little harder at school! We should also consider your final point "We DON'T want to log all of Wielangta Forest... just a portion of it". - well this is obviously very smart, what happens then? We start of with a whole forest, we lose a little, but that's OK, there is heaps left. Hmmm, now we need a little more? Let's log, but don't worry, we only want a little of it, not the whole lot...and so on, so forth - until the day of course where there IS ACTUALLY NOTHING LEFT! Now what have we achieved? That's right...we made some nice paper, oh yeah and we exported all of it to a nation who just migrate here anyway and take up more of our precious resources!

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2009-06-09 15:13

If killing native wildlife is wrong, then eating it can only encourage supply of kangaroo meat, and perpetuate the wrong. If introduced species like sheep and cattle are regarded as wrong because they do "terrible damage to our fragile land, mainly with their hard hooves that dig up our topsoil and vegetation" then by deduction eating lamb and beef is similiarly wrong, as it encourages the supply of sheep and cattle. One option is to import all lamb and cattle, so leaving Australia's native landscapes to be naturally rehabilitated. This would not be practical, nor legally possible now. The solution lies in finding a viable balance that enables important values to be respected and protected. One of those important values is to sustain the the health of viable populations of native flora in their natural homes. Another important value is to produce enough meat for Australian's now and into the future without causing adverse impacts on the environment so that future generations of farmers are not forced off their lands due to land being overgrazed, saline, etc. The ethics of which meat is acceptable for Australian husbandry should be examined. If it is ok to eat Kangaroo, what about wombat, Koala and Platypus and dog? Native animals in Australia were referred to as 'vermin' up until the 1960s and were shot for sport and as pests. Indeed, Aboriginal people were considered by the early colonists as savages. Many were also shot. Where does one's morals start and stop?

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2009-06-09 14:46

The reliance on generic terms like 'scientist' and 'expert' to try to justify wildlife killing and habitat destruction, mean nothing. Any land use proposal in Australia that poses an adverse impact on Australian wildlife species, should require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement including a report by an independent zoologist(s) to assess the various impacts of the land use development on native species (both flora and fauna). Given the vast areas of habitat that have been destroyed (over 75% of NSW), no native species can any longer be assumed to be prolific and so not at risk of decline and local extinction. Such a test would demonstrate the ecological costs of land use development. By the way, on the subject of 4-lane highways, there is one being build across the Blue Mountains, threatening the integrity of the World Heritage Area; also one down the NSW South Coast north of Jervis Bay and up north along the Pacific Highway. The NSW RTA has a mandate to build bigger and faster roads. Hundreds of millions is funded by both the NSW and the Federal Government's Infrastructure Australia department to build massive expressways.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-06-07 20:06

If you look at Anna Bligh's speech in which she announced her privatisation plans in state Parliament, she uses population growth as one justification for privatisation:

"The global recession has also confronted us as a state and as a government, as the stewards of our economy and of our public finances.

...

"...Confronted with the need in these tough financial times to continue the infrastructure task to build for a growing population."

So, population growth is justified as being good for the economy, but somehow, such costs that the Queenslander are being made to pay, privatisation being only one of many, have been omitted from the studies that the Murdoch press is so practised at citing. See, for example, this quote from the Australian's editorial "Workers welcome" of 16 May 09:

More migrants will inevitably cause pressures in other areas of the economy, including the tight housing sector where a shortage of stock is leading to rapidly rising rents. But the economic case for more skilled migrants is clear. Treasury estimates the $1.4 billion cost over four years will be more than offset by $2.9 billion generated in additional taxes and charges.

More more migrants have, indeed, caused pressure on the "tight housing sector", so much so that increased rents have almost literally turned vast numbers of even professionals into slaves -- not just my words, that is what a surveyor, who lives nearby, who has been slugged with massive rental increases every six months has put to me -- and the problem of homelessness has grown massively.

But we were assured by the Murdoch newsmedia that the alleged economic prosperity caused by immigration would make all these associated costs, now also including privatisation, well worth it.

Jose (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-07 14:04

If privatisation means that the Anna Bligh's State is almost bankrupt and she has to sell its jewels to continue creating infrastructure, it is clear that the economic benefits of high population growth are overstated! Queensland's population growth, if the growthists are correct, should mean that they thriving on all the extra taxes and charges and prospering! Population growth as a way of ensuring economic growth is flawed, and the extra amounts spent on infrastructure, securing natural resources and repairing the damage does not cover the short term gains of more people.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-07 11:56

Indigenous people in Peru's Amazon are being denied rights to their ancestral lands. Peru's Free-Trade agreement is violating their human rights and livelihoods due to their agreement with the United States. Peru's rainforests are being "developed" for oil, mineral and timber without consultation with its traditional owners, and peaceful protests and blockage are being met with military violence. At least 30 indigenous people have been killed, and some security force members. The financial benefits of this destruction and environmental terrorism will not benefit the indigenous people, or the majority of Peruvians, but a few political and business elite. President Garcia has dismissed the protests as a result of "leftist" elements, and declared a state of emergency! However, he has failed to recognise indigenous rights to their environmental resources and their traditional lifestyles of subsistence farming. Despite Peru's economic boom, little has been done to raise poverty levels. At its worst, free trade agreements undermine democracies and exacerbate huge disparities in wealth and income. Free Trade is not "free" but a way of making the rich even richer while giving as little as possible to those who need it!

Andrew Harris (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-07 01:31

Hi I eat kangaroo because to eat those foreign animals such as sheep and cow just supports a heavily taxpayer subsidised industry that is doing terrible damage to our fragile land, mainly with their hard hooves that dig up our topsoil and vegetation.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2009-06-06 10:27

There is a $220 million 4 lane Majura Parkway planned road, taking 90 ha of land, to cross Majura land in Canberra. No wonder Defence and Stanhope were keen to see the kangaroos "managed" by this time, to one per hectare. The scientists were on the payroll of the ACT and it is clear that their Kangaroo Management Plan was more about human convenience than poignant concern for striped legless lizards and golden sun moths! Kangaroo "expert" Don Fletcher claims that the best "animal welfare" for the kangaroos on this land was the "cull" so they don't have to be killed later? What type of defeatist logic is this? The Kangaroo Management Plan was clearly not based on robust science, and there was no logic or science about adhering to one kangaroo per hectare except that the land was earmarked for development. Kangaroos do not threaten their ecology or endangered species. However, 4 laned highways do! Maybe the ACT could pay to independent scientists to write a report about non-lethal kangaroo and wildlife management. With wildlife corridors and crossings to minimise environmental impacts, kangaroos, legless lizards, sun moths and roads should be able to co exist with minimised impacts.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-06-06 10:12

Barking dogs are kept by bullies. The decline of social cohesion has facilitated increased levels of bullying wherever the opportunity presents itself. Bullying is not confined to school grounds. Neighbourhoods are now governed by adult bullies who use their dogs not as companions, but as means to control the happiness and comfort of surrounding residents. But this cannot last much longer, because receptors of barking ---- whatever amount of it is regarded as objectionable ---- are fighting back. We are no longer prepared to accept the delivery of someone else's noise into our sleeping and living rooms. We are putting the bullies on notice. Shut your dog up, or we will see you in court.

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Fri, 2009-06-05 11:00

Statutory Declarations on their own offer insufficient inducement for an enforcement body to enforce, although in my 15 detailed barking control recommendations to the Tasmanian government I've sought to have them utilised much more than they are now. A sworn oath should carry an appropriate level of gravity and should be better respected by the judiciary.

Magistrates like to have witnesses in the witness box so their integrity may be directly evaluated and their statements more readily challenged.

Those of us who detest barking and the hellishly miserable life forced upon us by innumerable reckless neighbours, many of whom are entirely unsuited to dog ownership. eventually realise that our torment is not in any way the dog's fault. The dog itself is a victim of its selfishly moronic owner.

This means that, despite our original tortured feeling that the dog should be killed, and the sooner the better, it would be wrong to inflict any hurt at all onto an innocent party.

You mention that 1080 poison is for the control of feral animals, so I assume it would be much more fairly applied to dog owners than the poor, unfortunate, incarcerated creatures held perennially captive in their so-called care.

The Tasmanian government has recently proposed that the din from car alarms be restricted to 45 seconds, this being a sufficient indicator that something is wrong. Our government copied the NSW law that originally specified a 90 second limit.

Seizing on this splendid proposal, I've recommended in Quiet Tasmania's submission that the same 45 second time limit be imposed for barking. More and more people are however, demanding a zero tolerance threshold, and I support that.

Car alarms and dog alarms are both examples of loud, invasive, impulse noise deliberately designed to attract attention and their message is the same .. something is urgently wrong.

You can read more about this on my developmental website, Quiet Tasmania News, at

http://www.pebri.net/index_13.htm

Peter Bright
http://www.quietas.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-06-04 11:08

United Nations water adviser Maude Barlow criticised Victoria's plan to take water from the river system to Melbourne via the north-south pipeline as the "worst thing" the Brumby Government could do! However, the same could also be said about their plans for Wonthaggi's desalination plant. 1.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be emitted each year once it starts boosting Melbourne's water supply. Any off-setting of greenhouse gas emissions with wind-power is just tokenism! The plant will take in 480 billion litres of seawater and pump back 280 billion litres of saline concentration each year. The effect of this pollution on the marine environment and biodiversity is being ignored, and the tides will not be as efficient in washing it away as proposed. The locals in Wonthaggi have not had any say about this development and a pristine beach will be lost. The cost of the plant will be passed onto consumers, with soaring water costs. Water should be a basic necessity and right, not a luxury item. Our Brumby Government speaks of “sustainable” developments, but it is all green-washing! The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently projected that Australia's population could rise to 42 million people by 2050, with Melbourne and Sydney both reaching nearly 7 million people each. This could mean our coastlines could be dotted by various desalination plants unless we become truly sustainable!

Matt Mushalik (not verified)

Wed, 2009-06-03 19:58

Peak oil has happened 2005 - 2008, having triggered the financial crisis. Australian oil production is in terminal decline. Very soon we are going to have physical oil shortages. No one will be interested in rallies any more. I recommend to read www.theoildrum.com The IEA warns of shortages - "The next oil crisis is coming" “The IEA in Paris is warning of a new, much more severe global economic crisis around 2013. The reason is that investments in oil from new projects are being canceled by large oil companies. If demand starts increasing in 2010, the oil price could explode, fire up inflation and put global growth at risk.” www.energybulletin.net/node/48582 Latest crude oil graphs www.theoildrum.com/node/5416/504026

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2009-06-02 14:20

Kangaroos were here first. Killing them for commercial meat and destroying their remnant habitat is just a hangover from illegal colonist exploitation of Australia. Killing wildlife is poaching. Early colonists were rightly killed by local Aborigines for killing their wildlife, because the colonists were poaching. Poachers are today killed by indigenous locals in countries which have preserved and respected indigenous rights and laws. For instance, "Two days after members of the remote Jarawa tribe attacked a group of poachers inside their reserve, killing one and wounding three, Survival today released exclusive footage of the Jarawa, taken during a recent investigation in India’s Andaman Islands." SOURCE: http://www.survival-international.org/news/3950 Similiarly in Africa: GoTo www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2f0da-ZyYk I am not opposed to killing poachers as long as it is done quickly and humanely.

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2009-06-02 09:30

The kangaroo killing industry has a well-oiled publicity machine to continually justify their evil trade to the public. Even urban dwellers have swallowed their tirade, that kangaroos are a "pest"! They have been labelled a pest due to grazing pressure and competition with livestock, but science ruled this one out! Then kangaroos became a "renewable resource", or a "green" meat, using green-washing, but the meat is not clean nor humanely "harvested". Now, in Canberra, scientists have been paid to "prove" that kangaroos are an environmental threat! If this were so, Australia would be already wrecked before the First Fleet came here! The Kangaroo Advisory Committee is just a rubber stamp for the industry too. More kangaroos are killed here than the number of baby seals in Canada, but we in Australia are so apathetic and so easily swayed by the opinion of pastoralist rednecks who want to shoot any native animal that may come onto their property. The reality is that our Government wants kangaroos to be only in sanctuaries or zoos.

Menkit Prince

Tue, 2009-06-02 03:56

Perhaps, Anonymous, you need to pull the wool away from your eyes. Indeed you and 20 million Australians have been so thoroughly brainwashed to believe the drivel pumped out by the Kangaroo Industry and their cohorts, the Australian government. Please try to open your mind to the fact that all the information you have previously received MAY be wrong. Read www.stopkangarookilling.org where you will see that indeed kangaroo populations have crashed around Australia due to the drought and over killing. From 2001-2006 populations dropped up to 70% around the country yet still the massacre goes on. The largest slaughter of land-based wildlife in the country. For 2008 the quota was 3.8 million. You claim that there are 50 million kangaroos. In fact it is estimated between 19 million and 50 million - which means they have no clue really. It is only a GUESS. Why do their populations need to be kept down? Kangaroos are becoming regionally extinct due to over shooting and many of them are only 2-3 years of age when shot for their meat. The biggest ones have been shot out leaving mainly mothers and juveniles. This is a fact - so please do due diligence and read the site which is backed up with irrefutable data from government departments. Kangaroos are not in plague proportions. There are 5 times more sheep and more cows and people than kangaroo. Livestock are ferals and do much more damage to the land than any native animals. Humans are the most environmentally destructive - why don't we keep humans and livestock populations down? Kangaroos are beneficial to the land having lived in harmony here for 60 million years, regenerating and fertilising native grasses and shrubs, helping soil ecosystems. WE are the enemy, my friend, not kangaroos. As for kangaroos being protected, that is a joke. There is no real protection for kangaroos in Australia. If they survive it is by sheer luck. As for the killing being humane, who is enforcing the law in the bush at night while these cruel killings occur? According to the Humane Code of Practice it is LEGAL to bash joeys to death or leave them to die of starvation and hypothermia as orphans. Many adults that are not a head-shot run away with their face blown off to die in great pain of gangrene weeks later, uncounted in the obscene 'harvest.' Wake up, anonymous, things are very dire for kangaroos so please stop defending the status quo before kangaroos become extinct. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-06-01 21:04

What a horribly inaccurate and pathetic article. You should be removed from the website for posting some of the most one-sided biased information I have ever heard in my life. For starters, Kangaroos are protected in Australia by law and culling licenses are given out to simply reduce their numbers which are estimated to be over 50 million nationwide, a number which continues to grow rapidly each year. In-humane treatment like what you described would result in criminal conviction if the people were caught, and not to mention a huge jail sentence and fines that would put human-human assault cases to shame. I hope you never write another article again, as this is one of the most laughable pieces of trash that I have ever read.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-01 10:19

There is no excuse for the application of wilful cruelty to any living creature.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-31 19:00

In 1971, in the often cited article "Geometry For The Selfish Herd." W. D. Hamilton asserted that each individual group member reduces the danger to itself by moving as close as possible to the center of the fleeing group. Thus the herd appears to act as a unit in moving together, but its function emerges from the uncoordinated behavior of self-seeking individuals. Social behaviour is really "selfish", about becoming more entwined in the herd and thus "safer". This is a mentality characterized by a lack of individuality, causing people to think and act like the general population. the instinct or urge to be one of a group and to conform to its patterns of behavior. Numbers in a herd usually create a feeling of strength, protection. However, in humans, it is the numbers, and destructive behaviours, of the herd that is threatening their own survival, and that of all other of Earth's species. Instead of being the most intelligent, social of species, humans are the most environmentally naive and stupid! Many people imagine their ancestors as hunters, as herders, on top of the food chain! It is an illusion - we are actually a herd species like prey animals, however, all on a mass suicidal mission towards our own obliteration, and many other species with us! This is the reason our leaders will never address climate change. It is outside the sphere of reason and thinking of the majority of people. Our biggest predator is ourselves - our collective herd behaviour towards total destruction of the planet.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-31 16:15

(Copied from posted to discussion "The end of the Taliban?" following John Quiggin's deletion of post concerning 9/11 - JS) Your comment “everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories and I see no benefit in having them discussed here” is offensive to millions around the world who are fighting for truth and justice. Your viewpoint is now in the minority by the way. In my experience the reason more professionals don’t speak out is because they are afraid of losing their jobs. This is the face of modern fascism. I invite you to debate this on my radio podcast - please contact me by email. Thank you, Hereward Fenton Truth News Radio Australia

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-31 13:54

As I feared, my previous post citing JKF and the ancient Athenian lawmaker Solon have been deleted by Professor John Quiggin. Here are his words:

"Deleted. I think everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I see no benefit in having them discussed here. I specifically requested no metacommentary on my decision, and you’ve chosen to ignore that. You’re banned for 24 hours."

Update: (1 June 09): Shortly after the 24 hour ban expired, I posted the following to the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" :

If questioning what Prime Minister Kevin Rudd insists is the reason why Australia has no choice but to continue its involvement in the Afghan war, now overflowing into Pakistan, is deemed inappropriate for a forum discussing that conflict, can I at least commend Duckpond's excellent article, also about that conflict.

However, people need to be warned before they click on that link: The last time I looked, at least one of the comments appeared to contain references to subject matter deemed inappropriate for this discussion.

---

The setbacks to the Tamil Tigers as well as the Pakistani Taliban, however we view those movements, illustrate that it is folly to assume that popular resistance can always overpower the military might of powerful imperial nations like the US or their local proxies. Even where it succeeded as appeared to be the case in Vietnam, it was at a terrible cost in lives and material.

So, it seems to me that Ho Chi Minh and others, who tried to emulate his strategy, may not have been as smart as they have been held to be, particularly given that Ho Chi Minh failed to seize opportunities to decisively end the conflict in 1945 and 1954, claiming, retropectively that a people's war would bring victory at a cheaper cost.

I guess at least we can all sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that our rulers would never contemplate using the awesome firepower that they have used against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan against their own people.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-31 13:41

The following was posted here. As I noted in my last comment Professor John Quiggin has threatened to permanently ban me from his site for such 'meta-comments' as this which challenge his earlier deletion of my contributions. It would be interesting to see if quoting the words of President John F Kennedy were to result in my being banned.

Dear Professor Quiggin,

How do you respond to the following words of President John F Kennedy in his speech against secret societies given on 27 April 1961:

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy."

By rebuking me for making known to this discussion basic facts relating to the current ongoing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by having deleted my earlier post, and by not having responded to questions I put to you on another occasion, it seems to me that you are, indeed, shrinking from controversy.

What if, in response to allegations that North Vietnam was invading the sovereign democratic nation of South Vietnam in the 1960's, I pointed out that most of the 'invaders' were, in fact, Vietnamese independence fighters from the south, who had been duped into being repatriated to the north following the 1954 Peace Agreement, that the South Vietnamese Government was an unelected dictatorship and that even Australia's Foreign Minister Casey had acknowledged that the Viet Minh would have won overwhelmingly, in the South as well as in the North, if the elections scheduled for 1956 had not been cancelled? How is that different from what I contributed to this discussion in regard to the current war in Afghanistan?

My intention was not to hijack this discussion. I contribute to many disucssions on these conflicts and rarely these days do they go off on long tangents. To the contrary, it seems that the discussions are put back on track, usually with a minimum of fuss, because apologists for the Bush administration tend to desist from using 9/11 as a blank cheque to excuse each and every crime of Bush and his allies. If you like, I can show you where this has happened.

If you do decide to permanently ban me from posting to your site as a consequence of my having made this post, then please say so here, so that I can know whether or not to devote more of my time to contributing to forums on this site from now on.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-31 12:47

The post included below was deleted from the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" by Professor John Quiggin. Professor Quiggin justified his action thus:

"Daggett, you've had your say on this, and you are hijacking the thread against my previous request. I'm deleting your most recent comment and will deleting anything further on this topic. Any metacommentary, attempting to dispute my decision or similar, will result in a more extensive ban. I don’t have time to waste on this kind of thing."

I intend to respond to this.

Post which was deleted from John Quiggin's blog

Jill,

Many of your points are valid. I well remember being appalled and disgusted by the behaviour of the Taliban rulers, particulary for their barbarous destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan.

In 2001/2002, I welcomed the US invasion of Afgjhanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban on those grounds and because I fully accepted the fiction that 'Al Qaeda' which had been given sanctuary by the Taliban, had perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity. Even when I protested against the invasion of Iraq, I never questioned the US government account of 9/11. Like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 I was critical of the US for not pouring more resources into Afghanistan to finish off Al Queda instead of launching the invasion of Iraq, which clearly had no relationship with Al Qaeda.

I became subsequently dismayed to learn that, instead of the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan being totally repudiated by Afghans, they were able to undergo a resurgence. Whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as the same as the former Taliban rulers, the fact that many Afghanis found them preferable to the United States and the government they had intalled, is surely an appalling indictment of the US occupation, so it seems to me that we have not been given the complete story about Afghanistan. It seems that for a more complete account, we need to look on web-sites such as Winter Patriot and Global Research.

I can't know what would result from a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it could not possibly be worse than what woud result form their continued occupation.

More recently, I have made the effort to study the evidence of 9/11 and have realised, over seven years too late, that I was wrong to have accepted the official account of 9/11. I strongly suggest that you do the same. Please, at least, look at the video I gave you the link to. It is less than 10 minutes in length. I am happy to discuss with you any questions you have about that or any other 9/11 Truth material.

Donald Oats, I accepted the story of the respective impacts of the two planes and the fire causing total collapse of the twin towers at near free-fall unquestioningly for over 6 years. However, it has since become obvious that explanation does not take account of all the observations and eyewitness testimony. I urge you also to look at that video I gave you the link to, and then ask yourself if you are still quite so confident of what you have written.

Both the towers were designed to withstand a head on impact from a Boeing 707, a plane comparable to the 767's which struch the Twin Towers. Analysis has shown that there was easily enough structural strength left after the impacts for the full weight of the parts of the towers above to be supported. Most of the fuel, which did did not ignite in the air surrounding the towers, burnt out within minutes and could not have possibly caused the temperature of the steel to be raised anywhere near the temperature that was necessary to cause total structural failure.

Macca's picture

Macca

Sun, 2009-05-31 01:34

We were privileged to be present in the public gallery when Menkit delivered this presentation. She was passionate, measured and compelling, all in equal measure. You are a treasure Menkit. Macca and Jules

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2009-05-30 13:48

This was posted to article "The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09 on johnquiggin.com and is currently awaiting moderation - JS. For another perspective on the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, see articles on the Winter Patriot website, including More Thoughts About The War Between The USA And Pakistan of 13 May 09. And let's not forget that, even today, there is no legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan. The documents given to NATO by Colin Powell which supposedly proved Al Qaeda's guilt for the 9/11 attack have never been made public and documents promised by Colin Powell to the UN that would have proven Al Qaeda's guilt and thereby have made the UN legally a participant in the "war on terror", were never produced. ("Towers of Deception - the Media Cover-up of 9/11", Barrie Zwicker, p111, 2006). Anyone, who views with an open critical mind, the hard evidence contained in video "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2" will know that the 'collapses' of the WTC twin towers were, in fact, controlled demolitions, and therefore could not have been committed by Al Qaeda.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2009-05-30 11:56

The following comment was posted to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion on the ABC, "Balance! I’ll give you balance…". It is currently awaiting moderation.

In reality, the ABC has been well to the right of most public opinion for decades, certainly in regards to questions of privatisation, and economic deregulation.

What has concealed this and allowed some to depict the ABC as being biased to the left is that state and federal labor governments have adopted whole scale the economic neo-liberal dogma (which is, in reality, a justification for the looting of our economies by corporate thieves).

From the 1980's until about 1996, Pru Goward blatantly abused her position as journalist including on the "The 7.30 Report" to peddle her extreme economic neo-liberal anti-union views and to promote the career of John Howard.

In the early noughties the ABC blatantly pushed privatisation. As an example, in 2003 the ABC Radio National's Morning Show presenter Vivian Schenker, even as the Estens Review was supposedly considering the overwhelmingly anti-privatisation submissions and, form that supposedly, deciding the fate of Telstra, told her audience that the only think left to decide was haw the proceeds of privatisation were to be divided up.

For years, the ABC has abysmally failed to hold either Labor or Liberal Governments to account. Kerry O'Brien left Howard almost completely off the hook in one critical interview with him prior to the start of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 and idiotically referred to the war as 'ethical' whilst assuring John Howard that no irony was intended. I complained of this in a letter that was published in the Canberra Times.

More recently, Brisbane's ABC has given Premier Anna Bligh an astonishingly easy ride during the course of the recent rigged state elections and since then when she has attempted to foist the policy of "Shock Doctrine" style privatisation and public sector cutbacks on the Queensland public.

I have written of this in the articles "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09 and "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09. I have invited ABC journalists to comment on my articles, but none have taken up my offer. Anyone who wants to defend the ABC, here or there, is most welcome to do so.

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Sat, 2009-05-30 06:49

What an absolutely ghastly suggestion!

Hmmmmn. But now that you mention it ...

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Sat, 2009-05-30 06:47

James is right. Earplugs are not the answer. Neither is moving house. Neither is building a soundproofed room for when the din becomes too much.

The use of earplugs is a common suggestion from those not fully aware of the principles involved. My brother posted me some of his imported Fimo clay that he used for modelling birds and advised me to mold it and insert it in my ears. Against my better judgement, I did. It melted into a gluggy mass and I had a hell of a job getting it out. No help there.

Relocation is often the police suggestion. This also evades the issues involved. The police don't see barking in particular and Noise in general as crime, and they don't want to be bothered with what the legal system calls nuisances. No help there.

Modifying one room of the house as a retreat for when invasive din becomes maddening was a recent suggestion to a Hobart pensioner by a senior Tasmanian politician who, in common with every other politician, has no understanding whatever of the damage done to helpless victims of invasive neighbourhood did. No help there.

When I was a kid in suburban Sydney, long long ago, all neighbours intuitively respected the rights of others to live night and day in peace and quiet.

To society's great torment and the increasing damage to its health, those natural considerations of decent, caring people have gone. We now have the common attitude: "Bugger you mate, I'll do what I bloodywell want - and if you don't like it then piss off!"

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-05-29 23:55

It seems plausible that Osama Bin Laden is long dead, given the weaponry dispatched by the US and the coalition of the willing. It seems also plausible that the US would wish to perpetuate Bin Ladens existence to galvanise home and international support for its strategic or oil objectives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - which are likely more insidious than the communications experts convey. Weapons of Mass Destruction was a CIA concocted vicious rumour, has probably become the most effective propaganda tale in history. It switched almost global revenge against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda over 911, holus bolus to justify a multi-billion dollar unrelated invasion of another country (Iraq). So surely another CIA concocted vicious rumour like Osama is still alive, can certainly perpetuate the false movements and broadcasts of the US enemy number one. The ABC TV show The Hollowmen is not far from the truth about closed door politics.

Ernie Dingo (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-29 23:43

1080 is too soft. oNLY useful for indignous animals in Tassie. Public execution of the recallicent dog owners is the only solution to ensure no repeat offences. Not sure wat to do about the dogs, though. Shoudl they be exacuted with there owners? Scuze typing, plez. Only have four toes each paw.

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-05-29 13:54

One option to address recalicitrant barking dogs may be to apply a Three Strikes Law akin to that applied to a batter in baseball, which was a concept extended in the 1990s in the US to apply mandatory incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. Such could apply to dog owners, where upon a third statutory declaration by an affected neighbour to local council the dog owner is hit with a mandatory fine of say $1000. The revenue would go to the lost dogs home (RSPCA). A more hard line stance would be to make 1080 available over the counter, but I fear this would be misused, beyond the target species. 1080 is sodium fluoroacetate - a vertebrate poison used for the control of feral animals including rabbits, foxes, wild dogs, pigs. A right to noise nuisance is no different to demanding a right to smell nuisance - like setting up a tannery next door.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-29 11:16

Subject was 'wolf! wolf' - JS How do 1000 people create 4500 extra movements a day? do you think they are all going to drive to town 3 times a day? I used to live near there and we went to town once a fortnight. Our 5 person family would have had 1 journey per week, unless you count being dropped at the bus stop. There have been reports in the media that at least 1/2 the people living there support the village, as being just what the tweed has been asking for. So much energy being wasted on this and on attacking people who do not agree. It is really turning ordinary people off "green" politics. There is a lot of exageration and misinformation in this campaign and it is a shame because there are far greater dangers lurking on the coast. To the rally people- Just a tip- have you considered all going to Vinnies to buy some conservative clothes when you rally? You would make a far greater impression on wavering councillors. Just a thought.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-05-29 01:41

I can assure you that people who object to the noise of dogs barking would be far less likely to be the cause of noise distressing to dogs than those who are not. Pluto wrote, "Earplugs could be the answer." In my experience, earplugs are no solution. By the time one one has fumbled around in order find the earplugs and plugged them in, the damage is already done and even then, they can only possibly work if they block out nearly all noise including sounds we need to hear. The alternative for many would be to spend much of every day with their ears plugged. Anyhow, clearly you have adopted the attitude that people who are bothered by the sound of dogs barking are, in some way abnormal and a small minority and therefore don't deserve to have their grievances taken seriously. Whether or not we are a minority, I certainly hope that those who are fighting for our right to be protected against aural assault are not deterred by such attitudes even if I disagree with them in regard to some details.

Pluto (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-28 22:46

You may all be hypersensitive. Earplugs could be the answer. Dogs have much more sensitive hearing than humans, so think how most of them must suffer from all the noise we make. Cracker nights are an example. Pluto
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Thu, 2009-05-28 21:36

Each of us quietists in the anti-barking movement eventually realised the utter futility of trying to reason with besotted canophiles - so we don't.

Instead, I invite any interested persons to access the last dozen or so posts on the popular (300 member) US Yahoo discussion group, barkingdogs. It's at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/

Here's today's post from Aldo:

A challenge for Members - my 2 cents - Aldo

I agree completely, and I think that the problem of barking dogs is really
much more profound and serious than a problem related only with noise,
and in itself, it is a real torture, that causes a kind of deep and
sometimes permanent brain and nervous system damage.

After sometime, it is like a brain washing, that makes who is sensitive to the
barking totally mad, and even can lead this same people to do really nasty,
unreasonable and crazy things, ruining their lives totally, it is a very
dangerous thing not only for the family who is subjected to such abuses, but
also for other people around too, who causes it, due to possible
retaliations.

It is like a dangerous drug, i think. No difference between a continuous
barking for months and months and a heavy use of cocaine, after all,
considering the bad effects over our mind.

Both can kill and damage deeply people's minds , sometimes without return,
causing permanent traumas.

It is a really crazy experience, and I remember that when we ( me and my
family) were submitted to that torture of an intense barking for many hours,
every day, during months, we used to quarrel every day without any
reasonable motive, without control, even without perceiving why, we could not
sleep, rest, eat, study, work or talk in peace, and after a period our hands
and members shaked, we lost our concentration, hapiness, and our son also
suffered a real lot, traumas, with all that disturbances happening around
him.

In fact, during months we lived in a hell !!!

I think that the continuous barking of one or more dogs is like that old
chinese torture, like a drop of water in our forehead all day and night
long, without stopping, we tied up, till finally becaming totally crazy,
loosing our mind.

Such torture creates a kind of permanent fear and a deep sensation of
insecurity and trauma that never more goes way, forever, coming back
whenever you hear a dog barking again ( at least for me and my family).

So, does not matter if the sound of the barking itself is or is not above or
below the noise limits, because, after acertain time you start to reject the
noise with all your soul, you start to hate it ( and the people that allow
it), and you know that it's continuity is damaging your mind, family, is the
real cause of your disturbance, unhapiness, and not only the intensity of the
sound itself, because you know that it will happen again and again, and there
is nothing that you can do can stop it, after all, and nobody will protect
you !!!

The lack confidence in the law, in justice, in any action really capable to
stop it, unless you act with your own hands, the sensation of being tortured
all the time for months and months in total impotence, have your life
destroyed, that is what is more dangerous for our mental health.

It is like a rape (mental) that never ends....

Very sad !!

So, the continuous repeating of the barking is sometimes much more destructive
than the intensity of the sound, imho.

Aldo

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-05-27 13:19

A lot of what Sheila writes I emphatically agree with.

However, much of what Sheila writes is also beside the point.

I have also had to put up with unwanted noise, including dog barking as well as all those others described on many occasions in my own life so I know, from my own direct experience, how it can completely destroy one's concentration.

I can put a number of my own fail grades at University down to the fact that the noise of barking dogs as well as car horns prevented me from being able to study.

As Menkit pointed out, many, although not all, dog owners are irresponsible and have little concern at the misery that their own animals inflict on the lives of others. Sometimes they even go out of their way to make circumstances worse.

If we lived in less dysfunctional communities, we could find ways to curb dogs from barking as excessively as they often do in our increasingly crowded urban slums,

However, we don't and means to respect the rights of people bothered by excessive barking, including myself, need to be found, until such time as we do.

I believe it is possible, for owners with the will to do so, to curb excessive barking and they must be encouraged to do so with inducements, if possible, as I have argued before, or else made to do so.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2009-05-27 10:06

You seem to perceive dogs, not as creatures, but as things and possessions. You don't seem to take into account that the human and the dog have a valuable relationship and that, punishing a dog or a human is not like removing a car that makes a noise or telling a teenager to turn down loud music. Your comments seem to me to demonstrate a lack of empathy for the creatures involved, human or animal. It is incredibly distressing to have to deal with a neighbour who takes a dislike to your dog. The feelings aroused are similar to those of protecting any member of one's tribe, adult or child, but without the same rights. Whilst it is preferable to interact freely with wild creatures, I believe it is exceedingly damaging to live only with one's own kind. I think that our cities are built to make us virtual psychotics, deprived of normal intercourse with natural surroundings. We must resist this truncation of our world. It is true that many humans do not know how to interact with dogs or other animals including other humans. That is what needs intervention, education and sensitising. But many humans do know how to interact and the animals they have adopted have good lives. It is sad that those animals are often deprived of contact with their own species, which would be ideal. I think that one should always have at least two of any species. My personal reason for keeping dogs is that my mother got two to protect her when there was a rapist operating locally. I didn't approve of coopting a couple of juvenile canines for this task, but unfortunately I fell in love with these dogs, and the survivor is now 17 years old and a fully-fledged household member. Now that I am responsible for them - or the one that remains - it is my highest priority to give her the best of lives, as it would be my priority with any other living responsibility. I am very much aware of the terrible treatment we mete out to animals in our industrial farming and our expansion into their habitats. Whilst I suffer intensely to hear of the imminent extinction of tigers, the killing of masses of kangaroos, the evil treatment of birds in cages etc., I comfort myself by doing my absolute best to make up for these horrors as I can by the best regard for the other creatures whose lives I can affect - from providing a nice garden for birds, a home for possums, the best of environments, food and lifestyle for a dog, and trying to fight to preserve habitat. I also work part-time with psychiatric patients, another group which gets the rough end of life. I have noticed how concerned most of those people are with other creatures, how they identify with them. Their living conditions are frequently awful but many have excellent relationships with their 'companion' animals. How we interact with other species is complex and fraught in our industrialised and decaying society, but those creatures have rights which should be respected. If they bark then neighbours should work together to ensure that their needs are met. Neighbours should help the dog 'owner' to find a way, perhaps by sharing responsibility for the dog. Society should not have the right to just abandon or euthanase animals once it has taken them into its structure at some point, anymore than it should have the right to abandon children, old people, or teenagers - all of whom can be a nuisance and a burden if you do not have a direct relationship with them. I must say that once I did not know what it was like to live with a dog and dogs struck me as rather noisy, slobbery, bumptious individuals. I would never, however, have condoned treating them as objects. Now that I have lived with dogs for years I cannot regard them as anything but exciting and delightful creatures. When I meet a new dog or just cross its path briefly, I acknowledge its presence with due respect and I find that my attitude is mirrored by the dog. Dogs are sufficiently social to be benefit from all kinds of encounters. They seek these from a distance when they cannot get them close at hand. They have some habits that are often misconstrued. For instance, they hang out at garden gates, waiting to bark and make passersby jump. Often humans think the dogs are being threatening because they cannot see their tails wagging because this is a great joke. We have one dog-neighbour who sobs when his 'owner's' mother goes out (he spends part of the week with her). All the neighbours within hearing know why he does that and they address him over their fences in an understanding way. He gets over this quickly. My own dogs used to sing in an earshattering way, but then, I would sing along with them. There are no other persistent dog noises in my neighbourhood. I think that if there were I would definitely go and see the people concerned, but I would not threaten them or the dog. I would try to solve the problem. The worst noises in my area are lawn-mowing, screeching tires, revving engines, breaking glass, and occasional loud parties. The scariest animals are the hoons on Friday and Saturday nights, on foot and in cars as I walk home from work. The most charming sounds are magpie songs and the magpies are also charming, although a lot of people make a big problem out of these birds and make their lives hell as well. Some people are irritated by other people talking in languages they cannot understand, "jabbering". I think that this is part of the challenged response to dogs communicating loudly across distance. I do find the sound of persistent whimpering horrifying. That isn't very noisy, but I will always investigate. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-05-27 08:16

Your views typify those of many owners, however it's inconsistent to decry human population pressures while condoning and supporting rapidly rising dog population pressures.

I reckon Australia's dog population is twice that of the official four million and that it has been allowed by reckless default to become a plague that's now tormenting citizens everywhere.

Quiet-loving citizens tormented by barking nearly always find that councils won't enforce the laws for control, so the bullying emanates from owners foisting their selfish anthropomorphic stupidity onto peaceful folk rather than from those of us who simply want, or need, to live in a quiet and peaceful environment.

I have a saying: "It's the responsibility of those who introduce the disturbance (of whatever kind) to remove it."

Unfortunately, the police, in recommending that dogs be used as burglar alarms, are exacerbating the environmental degradation being imposed on the innocent. If there are burglars in your area then the police are not doing their job.

The Tasmanian government is proposing to illegitimise car alarm din exceeding 45 seconds. That's good, because it means that if car-alarm din can be outlawed like that, then then so can bark-alarm din. Both are examples of very loud impulse noise used to attract attention.

I have addressed the subject here at www.pebri.net/index_13.htm

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Menkit Prince

Tue, 2009-05-26 21:31

On the subject of not getting facts straight and not exaggerating, Paul's statement: "If one was to believe everything one hears about what is going to be built in the village, it is going to be bigger than Sydney with more hotel beds than the Gold Coast." That is an exaggeration. But 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 shops is fact and as fact is far too much development for this neck of the woods. We have narrow two lane roads interfacing with native animals, 2/3rds of whom are already at risk of extinction, why would we need another 4,500 car movements per day for all these people going to work every day (since there is only work for 20 people in the area)? There will be more roadkill, more human fatalities, more pollution, more noise. Let these people live in cities, not here, sorry. Then there is the issue of effluent possibly flowing into the Tweed River which supplies the town with drinking water. On and on, objection after objection. We DON'T WANT IT and we will continue to fight Nightcap because it's got too many flaws which obviously you can't/won't see since as a vested shareholder you are not willing to look at and admit. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2009-05-26 03:05

I am not exactly sure why it is that Paul Scott expects that Tweed Shire residents who have strenuously objected to the Nightcap development will accede to his edict that they "live with" the decision of the Tweed Shire Council to ignore their wishes, but I sincerely hope that the Tweed Shire residents tell Paul Scott where to put his advice.

I wonder what Paul's understanding of the concept of 'democracy' is?

My understanding of democracy, to once again borrow US President Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, is 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.

What has happened in Tweed Shire is clearly different.

Clearly, the Tweed Shire Councilors, the majority of which have been voted into office on the basis of being supposedly pro-environment and anti-developer, have been somehow got at behind the backs of those who voted them into office and been persuaded to disregard their wishes.

Paul Scott wrote:

It was not the developer who mentioned the work done to rehabilitate the land as assumed by James Sinnamon but by me who just happens to live and work in the immediate area.

This is completely beside the point. In fact, if it was not the developer that supposedly rehabilitated the land, then they would have even less moral right to build the housing estate. As I wrote earlier, many others in the region have also worked hard to rehabilitate the land, but have not presumed that this gives them the right to profit enormously at the expense of fellow residents by plonking a huge residential development in their midst.

So, Paul Scott, do you, or don't you have a direct financial stake in the development proceeding?

Paul Scott wrote:

"Did you know, that we employ up to 20 people for about 40 weeks each year right here in the valley."

But I thought that they were going to build 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 shops?

It seems like far more dwellings than are necessary to house those 20 people to me, even assuming that their work is socially useful, sustainable and will endure.

Paul Scott wrote:

"Surely if the people choose to live at the Nightcap Village they would become rate payers of the Tweed Shire and therefore contribute to the road costs. Also a sustantial part of the purchase price, known as road contribution, of these blocks goes to the council to cover the road costs."

In fact, it is well understood that population growth costs the local community and does not pay for itself. That is why council rates, water charges electricity charges, etc, are going up in South East Queensland as a consequence of the state Government's recklessly irresponsible policy of encouragement of population growth.

Property speculators openly gloat at how they will profit from improvements to land value made possible by the construction of infrastructure at the expense of taxpayers and local ratepayers, not to mention the Federal and State Government's policies to deliberately drive up population at the behest of the Growth Lobby.

Notwithstanding the supposed road contribution, it is unlikely that the situation with Nightcap will be fundamentally different.

Even if it can be shown that the costs can be fully recovered, it should still be the democratic right of local communities to preserve their way of life should they so choose.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2009-05-25 21:54

Very satisfying and beautifully written description of the tragic situation.
Oh, how humans kid themselves. How did we ever get the nomer 'sapiens'?

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Paul Scott (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 18:32

It was not the developer who mentioned the work done to rehabitate the land as assumed by James Sinnamon but by me who just happens to live and work in the immediate area. Like that assumption made, many of the other reasons against this development are just that. Assumptions made with little or no regard to fact. How does anyone obtain a living? By having a job, which in the current climate are rapidly disappearing. Did you know, that we employ upto 20 people for about 40 weeks each year right here in the valley.

Surely if the people choose to live at the Nightcap Village they would become rate payers of the Tweed Shire and therefore contribute to the road costs. Also a sustantial part of the purchase price, known as road contribution, of these blocks goes to the council to cover the road costs.

If one was to believe everything one hears about what is going to be built in the village, it is going to be bigger than Sydney with more hotel beds than the Gold Coast.

As I have previously said, protest as is your right, but please use fact not assumptions......

Audrey Robb (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 17:41

As I said before, we live in a user pays (i.e. capitalist society). Therefore, if you cannot afford something you can't have it. For instance, I can't afford a decent car, so I have to go without. I'm driving a 40-year- old Toyota Corona. I feel having a car is a necessity for me, as I have serious mobility problems. But keeping a dog is not a necessity. Therefore, it's just too bad if people can't afford the desexing, training, vet fees, etc. It is not right that ratepayers (pensioners and other low-income people) should be required to subsidise them. Re poker machines in pubs curtailing live music. Right now, I'm in mortal combat with Liquor Licensing because we have one dive in town which blasts the entire town with amplified "music" up until 2 a.m. at least one night a week. So thousands of people in this town don't get much sleep on these nights. Liquor Licensing don't want it stopped because they get income from Licences and a tax on every drink! Now we have another hotel which wants to extend its hours to 3:00 a.m. every night of the week. That means noise, noise, noise the entire time. Do you know that Maryborough, population 26,000, has the title of having the World's Biggest Pub Crawl? This Crawl, and all the loud music, is encouraging boozers and louts to the CBD, and we have police crawling over the place every night because of vandalism and crime. The Transit Centre is very dangerous. Our closest contenders for the Crawl title are London and New York - both very populous cities. I don't support poker machines either. Bring back 6:00 o'clock closing! Audrey

Menkit Prince

Mon, 2009-05-25 15:39

Let's face it, sentimental reasons set aside, any dog other than a dingo is a feral animal and as such causes death to native animals at every opportunity. Barking dogs are definitely an irritation, perhaps more so to some people than others, and strike terror in the heart of our wildlife. At the rate we are going with overpopulation, by the year 3000 every person will have only 1 sq. meter of space. Now if every one of them has a barking dog imagine how unbearable that would be? It just is not practical to keep domesticated animals. They should be wild as nature intended - and not introduced as are dogs, cats and the rest. Anyone who cares about native animals should not keep them strictly speaking. Having said that there are responsible people who train their dogs properly, don't let them loose and give them time, proper food and exercise - but I fear they are not the norm. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangaroos.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:37

NOISE is a generally unwanted consequence of the concentrated living conditions adversely affecting us all, sometimes to such a hideous extent that noise victims, finding that the authorities won't enforce the laws against it, are forced to relocate - with all the costs and stresses that go with such an extreme move. Noise is the reason most people move out.

But even worse occurs when a victim of noise can't secure protection from his neighbour's noise assaults - and kills him.

We Tasmanian quietists have devised the term "Acoustic Assault" and we want it banned like common assault and sexual assault.

The Tasmanian government is currently pondering public submissions on its proposals to amend our noise laws. One of these proposals is to widen the times at which "music" can be lawfully broadcast in public places. Our Environment Department had offered 10pm for our consideration.

I have seen five public submissions on this topic - and ALL have expressed outrage at what I call "gratuitous din."

In my submission, I have vigorously opposed this further destruction of citizens' rights to perennially live in quiet surroundings.

I'll be happy to forward a copy of my 22 page submission to any interested person. It's in PDF.

Please send your request to: [email protected]

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:32

If we are to hope to arrive at solutions that are acceptable to people of good will in both camps, then there needs to be some understanding of the needs of those in the other camp on the part of those in each of the respective camps.

What may make it difficult for many dog owners to train their dogs or desex them may be the lack of money and high price for the services.

The high price of many services is probably largely due to the excessive red tape needed by anyone who wants to set up a 'for profit' business. If people who are able to provide such services as dog walking or dog training were able to work directly for local councils and if the Federal Government were to waive the idiotic requirements of Professor Frederick Hilmer's Competition Policy imposed by the Keating 'Labor' Government in 1993, it would be possible for local governments to provide such services far cheaper than would be possible on a 'for profit' basis.

Whether the costs of providing such services should always be fully, or even partially recovered from those receiving the services should be a matter for rate payers as a whole to decide. The advantage of providing services for free and not requiring cost recovery is that the red tape and administrative costs could be reduced still further. Does anyone here remember how simple life was when doctor's properly bulk-billed?

If this helps create more harmonious and pleasant neighbourhoods, then perhaps the cost subsidy on the part of non-dog owners would be well worth the price.

Conversely those who do not take advantage of such services and thereby allow their dogs to bark excessively would get very little sympathy from the rest of the community when they are consequently fined.

Pat OBrien (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:00

Another matter that doesnt have any science to back it up is the number of kangaroos that are described as "sustainable per hectare". In Australia that's an impossible argument, climate variation, weather variation from day to day, it's all academic speculation. In the high rainfall area where I live, possibly 20 or more kangaroos could thrive on one grassland hectare, yet in high rainforest numbers could be much lower, and in the Simpson desert it may be only 1 kangaroo per 20 hectares. The whole concept is nonsense. As we all know, kangaroos control their populations very well if left alone. Pat

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-05-25 12:46

Whilst I strongly agree in general with Audrey and Quiet Tasmania I, nevertheless, don't think there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong on this question. Whilst, in my view, owners of barking dogs are treated far too leniently, it is also possible to envision circumstances where the stick could be bent too far the other way and even dog owners, who try their hardest, could be penalised unreasonably for occasional bouts of barking. All of us need to make compromises in order to get along with each other, particularly given the way we have been deliberately and needlessly crowded together by our governments at the behest of the Growth Lobby which they serve. An example of the stick being bent too far the other way is given in Tony Ryan's article "How Queensland Government addiction to poker machine revenue has destroyed local live music". Excessively zealous enforcement of anti-noise laws have made it impossible for many local pubs to stage live music. Consequently the space that would have been used for patrons to enjoy live music is now filled in most pubs with poker machines so that problem gamblers can help state governments such as the Queensland Government balance their budgets. I have lived with a problem gambler and so have been personally affected. How any treasurer with a conscience could contemplate creating the social deficit caused by problem gambling which is necessarily far higher than any financial deficit that the resultant gambling revenue would prevent in order to help him/her balance the state finances is beyond me. Also, young people are forced to travel long distances to larger live music venues. This makes drink driving offences more likely and exposes young people to more violence and drug dealing than would be likely at local venues. Of course I would probably prefer not to live near any local pub which stages live music, let alone a larger venue such as the unspeakably awful Normanby Hotel. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to put up with some loud amplified music for maybe up to two nights each week in order to prevent the greater evils caused by not allowing them them stage live music.

Audrey (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 11:57

Sounds to me as if Sheila keeps a dog herself! For instance, she thinks people who complain about barking dogs are "bullies". Then she excuses those who use a dog as a burglar alarm, and remarks that the neighbours are happy that someone keeps a dog for that purpose. That is pure rubbish. And I'd like to know when the "law" ever helped a victim to bully a barking dog owner. This is a phenomenopn unknown throughout Australia - and elsewhere.

Audrey (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 11:55

James writes very well on this subject. I have just one problem. I have never thought subsidising people for keeping dogs a very good idea. I am referring to subsidising the cost of training or dog-sitting, or dog-walking. Many people also want councils (the ratepayers) to pay for desexing, and even feeding their pets! While we live in a capitalist society, then it has to be : if you can't afford these indulgences, then you shouldn't have them. And keeping a dog is really an indulgence.

Pages

Click to read all comments.