Dogs go everywhere in Europe but they are more “normal” and better trained there than Australia. No one makes a fuss “can I pat him?”, they are just part of the family.
BTW in Melbourne dogs are allowed on trains.
2 Likes
Our tiny Qld supermarket now has notices at the entrance and inside about which animals are allowed in the shop. It is a tiny “convenience” store, the only food shop in town. They don’t have shopping trolleys as there isn’t much room between shelves.
The notice says they allow Guide Dogs and Registered Assistance animals, but not others such as companion animals; then an exemption for live seafood etc - which makes it seem a Notice they picked up rather than wrote themselves, as they don’t have any live things for sale.
There have been people pushing their right to have their animal beside them everywhere in town. Something that didn’t seem to happen a few years ago. Even the annual field day this year, that had horses, cattle, sheep, and a notice barring dogs; had patrons arguing that they could not be parted from their animal and enforcing their “right” to enter. It will end up with all the livestock corralled behind fences with no public access, and probably fail due to the costs involved and volunteers worn down by the extra work.
6 Likes
Conditionally, varies according to type of service or transport used.
Where permitted to travel small dogs need to be caged. Larger dogs if permitted need to be on a lead and muzzled. Similar requirements apply to rail travel in Europe, with variations by country and service.
Relevant information for NSW on where and how we can or cannot take our pets on public transport.
‘https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/using-public-transport/travelling-with-animals-pets
Note by example NSW has differences in what is permitted compared to Vic. Hence one needs to seek for each State/Territory and personal pet need what is allowed or not permitted.
2 Likes
I agree. I have a severe allergy reaction to cats and dogs these days and object to them invading eating places and other indoor places. When I was young we had many animals which were always well sheltered but never allowed indside the house. Whilst I can understand companion dogs and such, they should not invade other peoples space,
9 Likes
Agree with Pachy…if they aren’t a fully professionally trained dog (e.g. blind dog, and l honestly can’t think of any other that should be allowed) they are basically pets and l don’t think they should be allowed in shops, only a matter of time until there is a serious incident (there was an elderly lady mauled to death on a beach near me by other peoples pet dogs not all that long ago)
8 Likes
I completely agree with you and was going to voice my concern over that possible issue but I had already said a lot. I remember the case you’re talking about with that elderly lady, so, so tragic. Whilst most dogs are the most loving, caring animals at home, when they’re taken into new environments can run the risk of attacks (if the animal has it in them). Though I’ve never heard of it, if a guide dog attacked someone then that person could sue the place that trained it. Sure if a regular dog attacks you can sue but are hindered on whether the owner is able to pay compensation (something Bunnings should ponder). Take your animals to beaches and parks that you’re allowed to but supermarkets etc are not a place for dogs (in my opinion).
8 Likes
I think we must consider the needs of the animals before we take them out. I haven’t done a survey but I’m pretty sure dogs don’t like hanging around coffee shops or going to Bunnings and so on. Unless trained very well they suffer from anxiety because of all the strange people and even worse, strange dogs. Same applies when taking dogs for a walk. Seems like a natural activity for a dog but they need training to get the most out of it.
6 Likes
I live in a tourist town. I own dogs. We have a lot of open-air eating so its not uncommon to walk down the street and see people with dogs eating outside. My 2 dogs are regularly walked and well socialised. They love meeting other dogs (the other dogs are not always so interested) we’re always cautious to prevent issues and one of my dogs is quite tall (Bozoi) so some dogs are wary simply because of his size.
If I do take him with me to eat at a cafe, i have to choose carefully where we sit because he lies down, on his side with his legs stretched out. He takes up a lot of room!
However, my dogs don’t go everywhere with me. They get walked and/or go to dog park. We stop and grab a coffee on the way home and go sit in a little park area to drink it. Most of the time people approach me to talk to my dog. But when I need go to various shops, the dogs stay home. The big boy loves his couch.
My big dog has been to visit the local aged care home but that was before covid. They’ve started asking my spouse again when he can bring the dog back for another visit.
My biggest objection to people taking their dogs every time they leave home is when I see those dogs left in cars because they cant take them into stores. Do I think all stores should allow animals? Not at all, I think the owners should leave their pets at home or plan better if they’re visiting tourists. Although in most cases one owner will sit outside with the dogs while the other goes inside.
Registered assistant dogs (this includes guide dogs) should be allowed everywhere (even guide dogs have one place they can’t go - ambulances - although it can depend on circumstances ). Emotional support animals technically should be trained as assistant dogs, (they do exist) but I feel there’s a lot more of those than are actually registered as assistance dogs.
This is from the Queensland Act - “The Act prescribes some exceptions relating to procedural areas of a health service facility, an ambulance, a place or vehicle where food is ordinarily prepared, or where the presence of the dog would present a risk to the health or welfare of people ordinarily at the place or on the vehicle.”
5 Likes
If it is a food premise, they aren’t allowed to have pets indoors, in enclosed outdoor areas, within food preparation areas and in food storage areas:
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/business/food-safety/fact-sheets/animals
I am unsure how many owners of food premises know that this is the case, as there are some seem to be very lax in relation to where pets (customers or their own) can go. Not only are they potentially breaking the law, they may be potentially exposing their customers to risks.
3 Likes
yes, well aware of that
which is why so many of the cafes in town have outdoor seating for owners with pets. But my dog is so big, I have to make a careful choice about where we sit outside.
1 Like
I had a bloke cite the Constitution at me as his Right to enter any “public” premises (including private shops, sports venues etc). He couldn’t tell me chapter & verse and I realised I knew more about the Australian Constitution than he did. I guess he had read it on FB. Needless to say, he also had a “right” to bring anything with him (his mobility scooter, blunderbuss, wolf hound …).
Maybe the company I keep … Another told me the Constitution enshrined his “right” to access his land by any means he wanted, by driving through the neighbour’s land, by helicopter, boat, and do whatever he wanted on that land. I suspect a touch of American influence here. Why this insistence on My Rights to the detriment of anyone elses “rights”?
4 Likes
Sounds like a believer of the Sovereign Citizen Movement. Unfortunately they rely on information provided by other believers.
2 Likes
The link returns:
The page you were on is trying to send you to an invalid URL.
Try this:
1 Like
There’s a fair bit of redacted stuff - perhaps there’s a better summary somewhere.
1 Like
You will probably find that your informant is so special that he/she can do whatever they like but others, who might want to access their land by trespassing on the informant’s land for example, cannot.
Sovereign Citizens have invented a whole bunch of absurd rights for themselves. They keep getting knocked down in court. Instead of accepting they are spouting rubbish this is taken as proof that the courts are part of system that steals their rights.
Because he/she feels disempowered and will grab on to any idea, however flimsy, that makes them feel they are in control of their life or at least that they are not to blame for their currently unsatisfactory situation.
This is a factor in many conspiracy theories and so much blather from populist politicians, where reasons are invented why the audience is being harmed or disadvantaged by “Them”.
“Them” can be intelligent blue frogs, the secret cabal who control the banking system, opposing politicians, or any group identifiable by colour, religion, culture or language that we don’t like at the moment.
Coming back to earth, national constitutions may seem to be the ultimate authority on legal matters but in practice the body of law interpreting the constitution and the interpreters are as influential - or more so.
For example S.116 of the Australian constitution says
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Article six of the US constitution says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And the USA first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now which country spends it time going to court about religion in schools, the contents of school libraries, abortion, the teaching of creationism, yada, yada, and which one almost never bothers about such matters? You cannot tell by reading their constitutions.
1 Like
Wikipedia has a good article on these Sovereign Citizens. We even have a Senator who seems to believe in this nonsense.
I would steer clear of them. We had a group of them in QLD recently that shot and killed a couple of police and a farmer.
Police believe the attack was motivated from extremist religious ideology and it’s not connected to Sovereign Citizens.
This is getting too off topic, please.
1 Like
Yes, OT. Except if someone demands that they have a right to take their animal anywhere due to their attitude and beliefs.
And that should be controlled by relevent laws and the considerations of businesses, not pet owners.
I think, as the population and density grows, there are more rules, laws and regulations being enacted to attempt to live in harmony. Some people just see the Council’s animal by-laws and State laws about Assistance dogs as being an attempt to curtail their “rights” and control their life.
The publicity about Guide Dogs being exempt only makes them consider that their animal also has rights to enter anywhere. American movies have animals staying with guests at up-market hotels, and news articles talk about dogs in schools, aged care, pet cafes, Paris Hilton with a dog in her handbag, dogs assisting with anxiety, autism etc, so no wonder people are thinking their fur baby could go where they go. There will end up a compromise.
2 Likes
