Manningham News

Am I being over dramatic with the title?

Possibly not. Please read the Draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2017 – 2021 in the minutes for the council meeting of 27 June 2017.

Manningham Council have become heavy handed and probably a bit unhinged.

Animal Psychologists will be employed.

Please read page 77 of the minutes.

If your dog's barking annoys other people, the council will 'encourage' you to take the dog to see a dog behaviorist in the hope that it's barking can be reduced.

As I see it, dogs naturally bark. It is part of their nature,  one of the ways they communicate to each other  and one main reason people today, and in the past, have often kept dogs. i.e. BECAUSE they bark.

It appears that we have come to the point were dogs now can't be dogs. Dogs that bark excessively require reprogramming or re-education.

I am sure that the high-self-importance types who think they have a right to impose their views on the rest of us will say that 'I do not understand' the issues of putting up with a barking dog.

But Oh yes I do. For about four years we have had this barking, yapping terrier across the road from us. He barks for no reason and any reason, day and night. He even wakes us up at night. But we have not complained, except among ourselves. This is what I regard as patience, proper tolerance, understanding, putting up with things for the sake of peace. The simple truth is that I value our friendship and peace we have with our neighbors. I think it is what reasonable people do.

Note that I said this is proper tolerance. It is not the type of tolerance the council and their extremist friends talk about. Their tolerance  is very different to the tolerance of ordinary, decent, everyday people. They proudly promote a tolerance which only they appear to possess. Then they go on to say that ordinary people are just intolerant - probably even racist. However they themselves will not listen to or tolerate people who disagree with them or have a different point of view. In fact, they try to stop such people from expressing their point of view even to the point of calling such people bigots, racists, etc. Theirs is a very strange and twisted kind of tolerance.

But I digress. 

I am aware that people such as Harry Cooper from the television series "Dr Harry" has had success in helping dogs bark less. But none the less. It is a strange world we now live in. First people needed psychiatrists some years back to live in the modern world. Now dogs need similar assistance.

Political Correctness comes to the Animal World.

Yes, Manningham Council is slowly and gradually going a bit mad.

On page 76 it says:

That is all it says. No more context or qualification is given.

It appears that loony-tunes political correctness has come to the world of dogs. I kid you not. Please read the minutes.

So just what is "offensive to any person"?

If some old lady doesn't like the look of your dog, is that offensive.

If someone says your dog looked at them strangely, is that offensive?

The council appears to be staffed by very strange people to even suggest a thing like this. Again I think we see the handiwork of out of touch fanatics and extremists.

Not to mention the poor dog. He will probably need to go to 'sensitivity training'. I wonder if the council will pay for that?

However, there is one thing we can be sure of. The council does not want us to know what this is really about. The wording is so general, with no qualification or context is given. You can bet the last thing they want is the public to know what this really refers to. Most likely because either the public would laugh or the public would be horrified at what they are up to.

Pet Shops to be Banned.

Manningham chooses to listen to a group of people who share their views. It appears this group have suggested that Pet Shops should be banned in Manningham. Please see section 3.2 page 58 of the minutes.

Because Manningham has put this suggestion into the council minutes with no arguments or discussion to the contrary, there is a good possibility that they are in favor of this idea and intend to do something along these lines.

But we need to think about this for a minute to realize just how extreme the council and those they choose to listen to are.

The council and their friends are of the view that domestic and feral cats and dogs kill native fauna. And they are probably right.

But will banning pet shops have an impact on this problem. Apparently the thinking of the council and their supporters is that if you remove pet shops this will reduce the number of domestic and feral cats and dogs and thus reduce the impact on native fauna.

But I ask, has any study been done on this or is this just a 'wonderful' idea put forward by 'concerned and informed residents', etc, etc.

We just need to remember the styrofoam drinking cup fiasco to recall how much research and study go into the positions held by the extremist fringe. They put on a campaign some years back telling us how these styrofoam cups were a threat to the environment and encouraged global warming. Only to discover that what they suggested to replace them was even a bigger threat to global warming. Clearly they did absolutely no research and based their policy on wishful thinking and stupidity.

So let me ask again, has any research been done on the effect that pet shops have on the domestic and feral cat and dog population? If you take away pet shops will people just go elsewhere to buy their pets? When my daughter wanted a cat, we went to a breeder near the Dandenongs to buy it. We never went to a local pet shop. The question is valid.

So has any research been done before the council decides to shut down perfectly good and law abiding businesses that provide employment in Manningham?

Most likely, they have not.

However, if instead of shutting down these businesses, Manningham Council were to encourage residents to buy their pets from them, then they could probably work with the local pet shops to assist compliance with the council pet registration process. Possibly pets shops could even collect payment. So are pet shops part of the problem or part of an answer?

Also what ordinary decent person would want to shut down another person's livelihood without having done sensible and thorough research to see if it really is part of the problem. No one would suggest such a horrible thing without good evidence to support their decision. The only people who would be so one sided, ill-informed and inconsiderate are the fanatics and extremists the council chooses to listen to.

You will be spied on.

Please see page 82 of the minutes.

So there you go. It appears we will be able to trust fewer and fewer people. These service people come onto our property to do a certain job they are required by law to do. We let them in on good faith. But now they are spying on us.

And off course our dogs will be at a disadvantage. Dogs are protective creatures. That is one reason why people have had dogs for thousands of years. They are protective of their family, owners and owner's property. Now if one of these spies comes onto your property and is 'rushed' - which is quite likely - it will most likely get back to the Council who will then come and harass you.

Manningham Council think they know how to manage the community. But clearly they have absolutely no idea.

Why on earth would you betray people's trust and good faith like this with such a short sighted proposal. Why are they either ignoring or choose to be unaware of the long term consequences of such a policy. Why would you make residents suspicious of workers coming on to our property to do a lawful job. Why create tension in the community like this?

As I have said many times before, Manningham Council have no idea what good management is. They think they are clever but actually are very far from it. There will be less community trust, harmony, good will or good faith if the council persists with this. Once someone is betrayed by these spies and the council comes to harass them, you can bet there will be one more person who will be hostile toward an already incompetent local council.

And please do not think the council will understand the issues about dogs being protective of their owners and their owners property.

They most certainly will not and they have demonstrated as much in the past. Please see my summary of Manningham Council's ham-fisted approach to Henry the dog and his owner which I will describe below.

All the council know is their Domestic Animal Management Plan. All they know is 'dangerous and menacing' dogs. All they know are the rules and steps in that plan. There is no further understanding. Most if not all council workers will not step outside these procedures in case they make a decision or a mistake that comes back to them. They demonstrated this with Henry the Dog. All they know is their rules and how to apply them. They have put aside decency, justice and humanity out of fear of being disciplined, reprimanded and stepped over for promotion.

In private enterprise, if I had a tricky problem I could always go to my boss and discuss and negotiate a solution. After he discussed it with his seniors it would be seen as agreed and accepted by the company. But there is none of this at Manningham Council. All there is are the rules and the law and a great reluctance to act outside of them in case you do something that comes back to you in the future.

And just to make sure you get the point, the Council is going to bully/threaten people. Please see on page 81 of the minutes.

"Our current ... compliance activities ... include: Publicising results of some (not all) prosecutions in order to increase compliance".

So you better watch out.

The 1000 Voices Lie.

Manningham Council would like us to think that they listen to what we say. But that is not really what happens. Manningham will listen but if they don't like what they hear it is quickly discarded. And if you are persistent in telling them something they do not like, you are singled out as a problem and they look for (or devise) reasons to ignore you.

This is what Manningham Council did to some residents who resisted the highball stadium at Mullum Mullum Reserve. The council did not want to hear what they had to say because it was not in the council's interests. They then looked for reasons and excuses not to listen to them. Please see my article on this website for an explanation of what happened.

The council listens to a small group of like minded people who say the things they like to hear. In fact, they have come under criticism for their bias and one-sided approach before and had to do something to respond.

So they came up with this 1000 voices idea. It is meant to suggest that they took all sides of the arguments into consideration in framing the DAMP.

But consider this for a moment.

Would reasonable everyday people endorse banning of pet shops with no proof at all that they contribute meaningfully to the feral animal problem?

Would reasonable everyday people suggest the council to arrange for people to spy on residents who they let onto their property in good faith to do a job?

I think you can begin to see that this 1000 voices is complete rubbish. The council will act upon what their group of like minded fanatics suggest, as they always have.

Masnningham  Council will continue in their ways of doing what they want and ignoring or sidestepping anyone who objects.

On top of this, the council then goes onto say that the compliance and enforcement arrangements of the animal management plan are "generally accepted as appropriate by stakeholders and the Manningham community" page 71.

No they are not! They are only accepted as appropriate by the small group of environmentalist fanatics the council listens to. Most decent people would not agree to many of the things they propose.

The council cannot understand why the number of pets is decreasing in Manningham.

I find this both sad and humorous. Please see section 1 page 69 of the minutes. Manningham council is perplexed as to why the number of pets in Manningham is decreasing.

They simply do not give a moments thought to the possibility that it may be because of their intrusive, unreasonable, and their over-the-top policies and behavior. It simply could not be due to that!

They suggest that it is probably due to changing demographics and increases in the density of housing.

This is a good example of what these fanatics are really like. They have so much pride and self-importance, they think themselves so correct in their views that they simply could not be wrong or bring about bad outcomes. Their motivation is simply too good!

However, if you watch these people carefully, you will see they are very good at projecting their failures and faults onto other people, especially those who disagree with them or those they see as opponents. Basically they accuse their opponents of having the same faults or doing the same things they do which they know to be wrong. This is called 'Projection' and is usually done by children. However it is common among the proud, self-important types who insist on pushing their ideas onto us.

Nazism on Show when their Plan is Applied.

So you think Manningham Council will be reasonable and sensible when they apply this Domestic Animal Management Plan?

Please think again.

Please read the article on this website "Henry the Dog and the Manningham City Council". Most of that article is an exact transcript of what was said at a council meeting.

Basically Henry's story is this. His elderly 70 year old owner was walking Henry on a lead in an off-lead area. Two horse riders lost control of their mounts which then went running toward Henry's elderly owner. They knocked Henry's owner down and injured her such that she required hospitalization. The two riderless horses then ran off.

Henry, seeing the danger to his owner, then chased and bit the two horses.

Please read the article I referred to for the details.

The council simply did not want to entertain the thought that the horses or their riders were at fault. They were extremely reluctant to consider whether or not the horses should have been ridden in an area where dogs would be off their leads. As far as I can tell, they did not want to ascribe any fault whatsoever to either the horses or their owners. In fact, the council insisted that horses are 'skittish' creatures in an attempt to divert attention and blame from the out-of-control horses that knocked own and injured an elderly resident. And, as far as I can tell, they did not take into consideration that dogs are protective creatures who will look after their owners.

Instead all the fault was placed on Henry and his injured owner. This elderly woman had to pay for injuries to the horses. And now Henry has to wear a muzzle when he is outdoors.

From my knowledge of my daughters horse riding days, I am well aware that horse riders need to find out where they can ride their mounts. Manningham council has many regulations regarding where horses can and cannot be ridden. As far as I can tell, none of this was considered. The council also said that the off lead area was not properly signposted to say what activities could take place there. But most of the areas where horses can be ridden is not clearly signposted. Again we see the council divert attention and blame away from the horses and their riders by their statements.

In short the council went out of their way to excuse the people who caused the problem and laid the blame for the problem at the foot of the innocent victim.

I kind you not. Manningham Council was this ham-fisted.

And why would they do this?

Well, if you read their Domestic Animal Management Plan there is absolutely no mention of horses. The plan only mentions cats and dogs. So with their domestic animal plan laid out before them and with the normal bureaucratic fear of not doing anything that might ever threaten their job or career, the ham-fisted bureaucrats worked their way through their 'plan' and ignored everything else.

The council, of course, is required by the state government to develop and enforce their animal management plan. So the council went immediately to that plan and applied it – but only to the dog.

There was no assessment of what happened, no understanding, no sense of justice. Only a bone-headed application of rules by bureaucrats guided by a strong sense of self-interest.

The reason for all this was simple. It was so they could demonstrate to the state government that they had developed a plan and they were prepared to follow it. It also demonstrated that they can manage incidents of dog attacks, which make up much of the plan.

No, in short, Manningham Council cannot be trusted.