atw: Re: How to Have a Rational Discussion

  • From: Pauline Khoo <pauline.sydney@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:37:11 +1000

Everyone is given the same freedom of choice. One choice leads you to build
your house on a rock solid firm foundation. All the other choices lead you
to build your house on sand. You can only tell the difference when the
storms of life hit you, right? The houses that are built on sand will be
swept away...
On 29/04/2011 1:24 PM, "Kath Bowman" <Kath.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
> what you say about dogs is true but our local council has designated
several suitable parks as off-leash, and provided a large fenced park as
well. It also has a smaller fenced area for puppy training and small dogs.
In addition, all the ovals are available when not being used for sport. The
trouble is that the park (with a lake and bushland) is very attractive, and
the dog lobby covet it because of that.
> Kath
> PS I have a couple of dogs, so know all the good local places to take
dogs. Only one of them is too steep for me to use.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
> Sent: Friday, 29 April 2011 12:35 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: How to Have a Rational Discussion
>
> Now this is a great example of either/or thinking rather than shades of
grey. The way to solve the problem is to understand where the dog walkers
are REALLY coming from rather than where they say they are coming from, and
so take the argument away from this bit of bushland to somewhere else
altogether.
>
> Dog walking must be the most underfunded recreation in Australia. Dog
owners/walkers have become public enemy number 1, and they (WE ) lack a
voice because we are mostly old and mostly female. The end result of this is
that we have nowhere left to "run" our dogs off leash.
>
> The places left where we can run them include:
>
> - Places so isolated or dangerous no woman in her right mind would go
there.
>
> - Places so sufficiently isolated and unpoliced that the men with their
killer dogs go there, so we dare not take our dogs there.
>
> - Places so ugly or polluted that no human being in their right minds
would want to go there.
>
> - Places so treacherous in terms of steepness or blackberryness that they
are impossible for older people or older dogs to access.
>
> This is not true of all councils. The Gold Coast City Council has some
good off-leash dog walking parks, very suitable for old dogs and older
walkers, and have even designated small dog parks and large dog parks. There
are also some good parks scattered across Melbourne, but for example, the
Shire that covers the Dandenong Ranges has made sure that the task of
walking dogs is a nightmare rather than a recreation or a pleasure. When I
was living there I resorted to walking when the ranger was most likely
tucked up I bed, and broke the regulations on a daily basis, because I was
left with no choice - at that stage I had a young fit dog that had to be
"run".
>
> That said, I don't want arguments about this, or whether dog walking is a
legitimate recreation. I am saying it to give you and insight into dog
walker's real issues, and they DO have them. You can win your battle to save
your little bit of paradise if you address their real issues rather than
their stated issues. Make sure your shire provides good parks and tracks for
dog walkers and the issue will go away.
>
> A rational discussion entails more than for and against a proposition; it
entails respecting all needs and finding solutions.
>
> Christine
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kath Bowman
> Sent: Friday, 29 April 2011 12:26 PM
> To: 'austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: atw: Re: How to Have a Rational Discussion
>
> I am engaged in one of those frustrating debates right now. It has an
interesting twist. I am in a group that has been looking after a park since
1995(weeding, revegetating, laying paths and boardwalks to keep people out
of the native bush etc). In recent years, a 'dog lobby' has been muscling in
and demanding to be alowed to use it as a 'dogs off leash' park. (The dogs
are alowed to walk in the park on leash.) They don't want to use the other
parks available to them because "they are full of weeds".
>
> One of their latest ploys is to argue that the park has "no environmental
merit" and the many reports over several years that state otherwise can be
discounted because "they were written by environmental experts and of course
they would be biased". It is a curious turn when something can be discounted
precisely because it is stated by an expert in that field!
>
> I'll battle on, for the sake of the bandicoots, echidnas, kangaroos and
the amazing little Yellow Footed Antechinus - the males shag themselves to
death in their first year.
>
> Kath
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Levy
> Sent: Friday, 29 April 2011 11:06 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: How to Have a Rational Discussion
> Though, having said that, I certainly do appreciate the sentiment. How
many arguments go around in circles because of the failure of one person to
follow most of those guidelines? Those conversations are pointless and
frustrating.
>
> I especially find it frustrating when someone brings up talking points
that they KNOW aren't valid, but they hope that you don't know they aren't.
They want to score a point or two, and don't care how. That mainly happens
in political discussions. Harumph.
>
> rwl
>
>

Other related posts: