CC Dog Owner Turd Shuffle

[Vincent]

Hi to all the dog owners of CC (or people who walk their dogs past CC).

There seems to be a really nice move where dog owners seem to think its acceptable to kick firm dog turds on to the soil at the side of the walkways next to CC. Please pick up the shit that belongs to you and take it home so you can enjoy it in your own home as you have the place littered with shit right now. Well done.....

I know I will now get a rash of replies from owners boasting about how much crap they take home.....so you should. I would expect you lot to shout out the shit kickers!

Vince

[Zorro]

Vince, yes i saw it the other day. the flower bed along the road from the bottom of tower 16 to the entrance of 7-Eleven is full of dead flowers and putrified dog turds. It is all highly toxic. 

[kent]

4-5 years ago I thought Caribbean Coast would have had a bit of class and an opportunity to grow to be a really nice place.  However, with all the struggles with the dogs I have come to the conlusion that it will not and other places will be better.  The fact of the matter is that the schools are shit.  The dog situation will not change by much as the original convenants allowed for dogs in here but CC does not seem to live up to it because too many dog owners spoil it.  Like many regulare estates it will just get old and lose it spark and new ones will come and offer better value propositions that give it the spark.  And CC would have just passed the part of its life cycle to move up stream.

Last year, I was still feeling very positive about CC.  I don't think the turd shuffle is as bad anymore (at least for the areas that I walk).

However, the advent of the new waterfront public housing is certainly a cause for concern as well as the shop mix in the bazaar.  Unfortunately, the need/greed of making a huge profit equates to 20% of shops being Real Estate Companies, with 2 convenience stores, and now we are left with 2 (pardon my french here) restaurants.  YLK restaurant consistently serves luke warm milk tea and the food is hit and miss.  I preferred the Ah Yut restaurant, but now that it's gone, I don't wanna sit in the crowded feeling Fairwood.  I've looked at the menu twice but both times it looked like ages before I could get a seat and at Ah Yut and YLK, i can almost instantly get a seat each time. 

There is no captain at the wheel and just the crew trying to keep the ship afloat.  Hard to put blame on anyone since there is no captain to take responsibility, but perhaps it is something about HK that I dont' yet understand.  I used to want to buy here, but just looking at the trend, I'm not as positive about that idea anymore.  I hope the prices decline more so I can pick up a place along the TC line closer to town (that ride from here to Tsing Yi is the killer).

[Jonathan]

FYI, we have developed a dog management plan together with MO.  The dog lovers are resisiting it viciously.  I understand they objected to it in DOC after I left, but not sure what parts.  I have reproduced it below.  It will now be discussed by the dog lovers and Mr. Lo, DOC member from phase 4.  Feedback would be welcomed.

Jonathan

********************

Dog Management Plan

1.   To enforce the house rules stipulated in DMC and relevant laws of Hong Kong.

2.   To provide training to all management office and security staff on the management of dogs on a day to day basis. This duty should be added into their Role Specifications. 

?   Each management office staff must receive training on house rules and Hong Kong laws on induction
?   Refresher training courses to be given once a year.

3.   To educate residents / dog owners / dog care takers about proper behaviors on raising dogs in Caribbean Coast by holding regular seminars and activities in Clubhouse.

Require owners and domestic helpers in households with dogs to receive training on proper behaviour.

Demonstrate to owners that adding water on urine on cement/tiles service does not wash away the problem and that it may still liable for an offence of not cleaning up the fouling properly.

4.   To issue notices reminding residents / dog owners / dog care takers about good care of dogs both in flat units and common areas.

Install notices at all entrances to Development reminding dog owners that fouling the area is against the law, and requesting them to move away from the entrances to the dog toilets.

5.   Install fencing around planted areas near entrances to Development where greatest amount of fouling occurs, and ensure that such fences are maintained.

6.   Request the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to install dog toilets at several more places outside the Development to make them convenient for use.

7.   To form a special task force of security staff to handle mis-behaviors of dogs.
?   To patrol all common areas by a team of 2 security guards on daily basis.
?   To remind all owners / care takers of dogs if mis-behaviors are found in the common areas of Caribbean Coast. 
?   To report to the Management Office all cases of violations of house rules.
?   To issue reminder to the concerned dog owners regarding the mis-behaviors.
?   To pass cases to Management Office for further handling if mis-behaviors are found repeatedly.
?   To issue warning letter to the concerned dog owners regarding the mis-behaviors if there is no improvement.
?   To require the concerned owners to remove the dog if there is still no improvement.  Such cases will be passed to MTR Legal Department for handling.

8.   To strengthen the communication between the Management Office and DOC’s Sub-group on dog management for which individual dog owners will be invited as members provided they maintain a constructive attitude towards resolving issues relating to dogs.

8.   To strictly enforce the rule contained in paragraph 2(g) of the Third Schedule to the Principal Deed of Mutual Covenant that “no domestic animal or other pets shall be kept … if the same has been the cause of reasonable complaint by at least two owners or occupiers” and to immediately refer all such reasonable complaints to the legal department of MTRC as soon as such two complaints have been received.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

John, This is Jeff here, please get the record of last DOC meeting from MO and listen to it with a Chinese friend of yours for good translation, then you will found out that Mr. Lo teared the rule in front of the dog owners and showed friendly to them right after you left. However, he also complaint the dog owners' behaviour to me right after the dog owners left the meeting room too. I don't comment on his behaviour, but tell you the facts here for you guys to comment. Thanks.

[charles]

great, more fencing 

[oldbill]

Hi Jonothan

Thanks for inviting some comment on the dog management plan prepared by the DOC.

First of all please re-examine why the DOC is discriminating against apparent dog owner abuses of the house rules.  If other abuse of house rules have gone untouched, then you could run into some trouble on this.  I would suggest that the DOC as well as MTR management take "independent" legal advice on this point as well as several other points that I am about to set out for you.

Secondly, as a general remark, you will not be able to lawfully justify additions to house rules in order to effect these proposals as they will unreasonably interfere with the rights of each and every resident to keep pets.  Please refer to

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=62763&QS=%28%7B%24tsang+chi+ming%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU

which i know you'll say you are aware of, but please spend some time to read it and understand its implications

Now to some more specific comments on the proposals

Dog Management Plan

1.   To enforce the house rules stipulated in DMC and relevant laws of Hong Kong.
Please remember that neither you, any other member of the OC , nor the resident management office or security staff are empowered to enforce the laws in the areas of dog nuisances
2.   To provide training to all management office and security staff on the management of dogs on a day to day basis. This duty should be added into their Role Specifications.  Good idea, many of them do not understand the terms "common parts of a building" and "public place"

?   Each management office staff must receive training on house rules and Hong Kong laws on induction
?   Refresher training courses to be given once a year.

3.   To educate residents / dog owners / dog care takers about proper behaviors on raising dogs in Caribbean Coast by holding regular seminars and activities in Clubhouse.

Require owners and domestic helpers in households with dogs to receive training on proper behaviour.
See my above comment on unreasonable inclusion of house rules.
Demonstrate to owners that adding water on urine on cement/tiles service does not wash away the problem and that it may still liable for an offence of not cleaning up the fouling properly.
Check out the laws yourself on dog fouling, obviously the person drafting these proposals does not, it's important to understand what the law says about dogs urinating and the definition of common parts of a building, and that is not the definition used in the CC house rules by the way
4.   To issue notices reminding residents / dog owners / dog care takers about good care of dogs both in flat units and common areas.

Install notices at all entrances to Development reminding dog owners that fouling the area is against the law be careful with your wording here as not all dog fouling will amount to an offence, and requesting them to move away from the entrances to the dog toilets.

5.   Install fencing around planted areas near entrances to Development where greatest amount of fouling occurs, and ensure that such fences are maintained.

6.   Request the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to install dog toilets (dogs don't use these, but more dog bins would be helpful) at several more places outside the Development to make them convenient for use.

7.   To form a special task force of security staff to handle mis-behaviors of dogs.
?   To patrol all common areas by a team of 2 security guards on daily basis.
?   To remind all owners / care takers of dogs if mis-behaviors are found in the common areas of Caribbean Coast. 
?   To report to the Management Office all cases of violations of house rules.
?   To issue reminder to the concerned dog owners regarding the mis-behaviors.
?   To pass cases to Management Office for further handling if mis-behaviors are found repeatedly.
?   To issue warning letter to the concerned dog owners regarding the mis-behaviors if there is no improvement.
?   To require the concerned owners to remove the dog if there is still no improvement.  Such cases will be passed to MTR Legal Department for handling.

8.   To strengthen the communication between the Management Office and DOC’s Sub-group on dog management for which individual dog owners will be invited as members provided they maintain a constructive attitude (it would appear that it is your DOC Chairman who is hell-bent on imposing destructive tactics against dog owners) towards resolving issues relating to dogs.

8.   To strictly enforce the rule contained in paragraph 2(g) of the Third Schedule to the Principal Deed of Mutual Covenant that “no domestic animal or other pets shall be kept … if the same has been the cause of reasonable complaint by at least two owners or occupiers” and to immediately refer all such reasonable complaints to the legal department of MTRC as soon as such two complaints have been received.  Please note the legally required reference to "reasonable" complaint.  This is not for you to decide on what is reasonable, but the courts.  In fact it would seem unlikely that your DOC is able to see the wood from the trees on this whole issue.  There are reports from some dog owners that a member of the DOC regularly reports to management, and even to the police, when he sees what is in his view  a breach of house rules involving a dog.  This myopic attitude persists to the extent that this person patrols the areas of CC on a bicycle, in breach of house rules, takes intimidating photos of residents with dogs, and rants and raves at them if they do not comply with his incessant and unwarranted demands.

I cannot help but feel that this initiative is ill-founded.  The DOC has much to concern itself with, why this?  Seems to me to be a personal vendetta by a few.  Why not get the sub-group to work together on improving life in CC without this confrontational attitude?

[Jonathan]

My response to this is as follows:

First, I am very familiar with the MeiFoo case.  This case does not say that house rules cannot be imposed.  It says that unreasonable interference with the right to own dogs cannot be imposed.  In my view, the not unreasonable requireements to make owners aware of the laws, and how they can limit problems caused by dogs, without restricting their right to own dogs, would not be rejected by the courts.

Secondly, this is not a vendetta against dogs.  Dogs per se are not the problem.  It is dogs that urinate inside and in the vicinity of the development, causing the entrances to the development o become stinky areas to be traversed at risk to ones senses, that are the problem.  It is dogs that are left alone and bark for hours that are the problem.  If you can defend these practices then you are a cleverer person than I am.  But these problems exist, and we need to find a way to deal with them.

What is your solution?

Jonathan

[kent]

Thanks for posting the updates and information to keep ppl informed.

I've witnessed the progression of these rules being developed for residents of CC.  Unfortunately, some people have decided to divert all the attention to pet owners, where the issues are not specifically targeted. 

I hope the groups involved can focus on the greater results rather than managing a specific group of owners, tenants and residents.

The discussions always seem to take a negative spin.  Firstly, the members who make judgments, statements and rulings against pet owners;  and secondly, the rebuttals from pet owners.

Can we focus on the important issues?

1) Safety
2) Cleanliness, and pleasantness of the environment
3) Happiness and Harmony

Quite simple.  Let's not over complicate the rules and regulations.  It's just more unecessary work! 

[Poppet]

Any measures to improve our environment and stop the area smelling so disgustingly has to be a good thing, good luck with it jonathan and well done for putting yourself out there.

[oldbill]

First of all, Jonathon, you have hit the nail on the head.  The Mei Foo case indicates that the courts will not accept unreasonable impositions on residents, as you point out.  You then go on to state that these proposals are not unreasonable.  Here your argument falls flat.  It is not for you to decide, as I clearly stated, what is reasonable in a belief that the courts will support you.  It is also obvious to any sensible person, that you and the DOC have such clouded judgment on this issue, that anything you propose is bound to be unreasonable.  Hence my suggestion, one of my proposals to you, is to seek independent and professional advice on what you propose.  In the long run this could save the DOC and MTR Management money in the way of court costs.

Secondly, you again failed to read or seek to understand my comments about offences committed, where and under what circumstances.  For example, Jonathon, are you aware that it is not an offence for a dog owner, etc, to allow a dog to urinate (other than in the common parts of the building) or that there is no requirement to clean up the urine???  This covers the areas you refer to as the "vicinity of the development".  However, whilst under no obligation to do so, the vast majority of owners carry a supply of water to help ease the problem.  A visiting friend laughed at the practice stating that under no circumstances would a dog owner do this where he came from (Canada).

Barking dogs can be dealt with under existing legislation as it is an offence to keep any animal that habitually annoys any person due to its noise.  Please advise anyone to make proper reports to management (who can issue an advisory notice) and also police for further warnings or even prosecution if the situation does not improve.

Not a vendetta?  I remain unconvinced by your limited response to the behaviour of the DOC Chairman and other members on this issue.

Whilst you may get positive encouragement from non-dog owners on this initiative, like from Poppet who is a known anti-dog proponent on this forum, you should be careful about how you use this support as it is unlikely that any of them will ever seek to better understand the problem other than to wish it would all go away.

I've said this before on this forum, and I'll say it again.  CC is a dog permitted zone, it always will be.  Most dog owners are responsible dog owners and go out of their way to ensure that little or no nuisance is caused (sometimes some nuisance is unavoidable, like the smell of urine, but this in itself does not necessarily constitute an offence or warrant any other draconian measures to control).  The way forward, as I have suggested, is to seek better co-operation and involvement of the responsible owners to help the DOC and MTR Management to improve the environment.  Your proposals will not achieve this for reasons already stated, and will just further alienate management and the dog owning community.

You have my email address, so if you would like to set up a meeting, I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you personally at a mutually convenient time.  I'll leave the hounds at home.

[kent]

Oldbill, thanks for speaking the truth on this subject.

Considering health and well being of others, I do pour water on non-grass/ non-dirt / non-absorbing surfaces in order to wash away or dilute the smell of my dogs urine.  However, I do it only out of courtesy and knowing that if I don't do it and others don't do it, that it will cause our estate to stink like a toilet. 

I do not put additives or chemicals to this water as chemicals that do not occur naturally in nature will cause death or mutations to plants and animals, potentially creating super-viruses.

Again, more than these rules on pet ownership, Caribbean Coast needs to maintain the courses of action that will increase happiness and satisfaction, rather than rules to manage how people behave. 

The dog muzzle rule must be abolished. 
Muzzles should not be mandatory.  If a dog/pet has the tendency to bite, then the owner of said animal shall bear the responsibility and liability for any damages caused by such animal.  Otherwise, if a pet is kept at a reasonable distance from people, and people are not instigating such an animal, then it's safe to anticipate that issues of animals biting people will remain a non-issue. 
 

[Gooner]

Muzzle the pet haters, I say

[fieter]

Oldbill

Can you advise as to how binding the rule about muzzles are??
Who gave management the right to make this up?? I assume it was a kneejerk reaction to an incident?

My dog panicks when the muzzle goes on - and will never get used to it. She suffered from terrible abuze in a previous life and is very meek - will never attack or bite anybody or other dogs.

I need to not use the muzzle and be able to justify it.

[kent]

Oldbill

Can you advise as to how binding the rule about muzzles are??
Who gave management the right to make this up?? I assume it was a kneejerk reaction to an incident?

My dog panicks when the muzzle goes on - and will never get used to it. She suffered from terrible abuze in a previous life and is very meek - will never attack or bite anybody or other dogs.

I need to not use the muzzle and be able to justify it.

Why justify it?  There is no clear risk or danger in not having muzzles on tame domesticated animals.  By my personal standard, muzzling is inhumane and I refuse to muzzle my dog.  If muzzling dogs becomes mandatory, then I'd like propose some rules for unruly people be made mandatory as well.  What's fair is fair.