Free Victor!
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008
Despite popular opinion, local councils don’t simply exist to enforce petty, confusing bylaws and issue parking fines. They perform several valuable functions - provision of many local services, town planning, management of local parks and facilities.
It made us wonder why so many good citizens have such a low opinion of them. Well, being good citizens ourselves, we set out on a crusade to find out. Then, yesterday, we stumbled upon Victor…
Victor is the loyal and loving pet of Ian Cook. Until recently, Victor lived with Mr Cook at their home in Frankston. Then the Frankston council took Victor away. But why?
See movie of Victor in his temporary home.
Well… you see… Victor is a goat. Apparently, as of recently, being a goat is against the law in Frankston. Or is that keeping a goat? We can’t be sure, but perhaps Deborah Morris of Leader News can better inform us. Click here to read her article, and be sure to return to this site to add your comments. Edit - also click here to see Deborah Morris’ follow-up story.
We’re interested in your thoughts on this story. Is it fair, or is it an example of petty local government bureaucracy? We clearly think it’s the latter, but would like you to share your thoughts. Should we start a petition on this site - a grass roots movement, if you will?
Jarrod
What you can do: visit freevictor.com and sign the petition.
Comments
Sheila Newman
Tue, 2008-05-27 08:35
Permalink
The goodness of goats
dave
Tue, 2008-05-27 10:27
Permalink
Getting on council's goat
Sheila Newman
Thu, 2008-05-29 10:44
Permalink
Watch Victor on t.v.
Sheila Newman
Thu, 2008-05-29 16:55
Permalink
Eco-friendly goats vote to phase out humans
Debbie (not verified)
Wed, 2008-05-28 19:49
Permalink
Domestic Animals - Part of the Family!
I agree that goats and other animals which have been introduced to Australia can cause an environmental problem, but as a pet owner, I also admit to a long addiction to having pets. I have welcomed pet mice, horses, rabbits, a ferret, a lizard, goats, dogs, cats, birds, roughly 100 introduced tropical fish and one rather goofy pig into my life over my lifetime. And it's true. I got attached to each and every one of them.
I also understood the responsibility that went with having a pet in my life. You don't let cats run around killing birds. You don't let tropical fish out in the bay. And you don't let dogs roam the streets. You abide by the laws and seek to ensure that they don't play loud music or throw wild parties (or is that children?). You take care of your pets and they take care of you, and you respect your own environment as well as theirs. Provided this is the case, and there is no cruelty or neglect, there is really no comprehensible reason why someone should be forced to give up a pet.
For those of us who understand that animals are more than just livestock running around, waiting to be eaten, it’s bewildering how anyone could support the removal of a clearly beloved domestic pet from the back yard of a private citizen.
Increasingly pet owners are being forced to discount the importance of having pets as part of their family by laws similar to this and other market restrictions which are put on rental market places which more and more often say “No Pets”.
We are becoming a society which discounts the importance of having the experience of a loyal and adoring pet, and who almost sees a pet as a disposable “optional extra” regardless of the relationship it has with its family.
What possible reason could there be to class this animal as “livestock” a term which inherently suggests it has no personality, no rights and no value beyond it’s consumer worth.
I am lucky to have grown up in country and rural areas where there were no such restrictions on our animals. But even if we are to introduce new laws relating to the custody of pets, shouldn't there be an amnesty for those who were obtained legally prior to the changes?
(excerpts from this are at freevictor.com)
Add comment