FIRSTLY, let me state that I am not a member of the Bendigo Obedience Dog Club, and that my remarks are my own personal views based upon my wife’s involvement and experiences in the club over the past 17 years with our dogs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This 2014 Easter Gala Parade should have been the 51st year that the Bendigo Obedience Dog Club had participated. Fifty-one years of dedicated participation, 51 years of demonstrating to the assembled throngs lining the procession route that these dogs are under control and well-behaved because the people in charge of them have learnt the necessary skills involved, and have gained the personal confidence that goes with that, to become responsible dog/pet owners.
Who makes that possible? The Bendigo Obedience Dog Club.
I would have thought that such an organisation would be regarded as a shining light in the eyes of the Dragon City Committee in presenting responsible pet ownership to those watching the parade. Considering the ongoing issues the council has to deal with concerning irresponsible dog/pet ownership, and the ratepayer-funded expenses incurred in policing such, you would think the club’s involvement would be welcomed.
However, suddenly the club was given a directive by the Dragon City Committee, for the first time in 51 years, to “muzzle your dogs”. The club rightly chose not to risk it. Risk what? I mean, the club has its own public liability insurance.
I was never a dog person until I met my wife. I grew up as a kid thinking that dogs that had muzzles on were savage and not to be trusted.
To see the local greyhound trainer walk past our house with his two dogs wearing wire muzzles frightened the hell out of us five kids. Our impression was that these dogs were obviously unpredictable and needed to be muzzled so they couldn’t bite us.
So, suddenly, someone decides that the obedience dogs should be muzzled for the parade. This directive didn’t actually state that they “must” be muzzled, but that the onus would be upon the club in case of an “incident’. For the club members to have to walk their beautifully groomed and obedient dogs along the procession route wearing muzzles went against every principle the club promotes.
The directive placed the club in an impossible situation. What impression do you think muzzled dogs on leashes would give the assembled public? That these dogs needed to be restrained in case of an “incident” and that the dog handlers were not competent enough to manage them “in case”?
It’s more than disappointing that some person can come up with such an ill-conceived directive and have it agreed to by the committee. What’s next? Are you going to ask for Sun Loong to be muzzled? I mean, Sun Loong lunges at more people in 100 metres along the procession route (as it should), and probably scares more kids than any obedience dog has in the past 51 years.
Next year my wife and I, plus “Spencer” (minus his muzzle), shall enjoy our Easter Holidays and spend our money in another part of Victoria.
What's your opinion?
Do you have some thoughts on this issue? Click here to send a letter to the editor.
Preference is given to letters of no more than 350 words.