Whaleoil General Debate

keep-calm-and-don-t-shoot-the-messenger-3Morning everyone, and welcome to Whaleoil’s daily General Debate post (another one called Backchat will start at 6pm). To participate you’ll need to register a free Disqus account.

There are some rules, and if there is one thing about Whaleoil that you need to know is that these rules are dispassionately and strictly enforced.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Doc45

    I find it incomprehensible that people are allowed to maim and disfigure other humans in the name of keeping a dog. If I take a broken bottle into a fight and mess up persons face or arm I am for the high jump. I will do time – no ifs, no maybes. The owners of these mauling canine monsters blame themselves when their apes go nuts so let them take the consequences – several years in jail.

    The govt on behalf of the community and in the name of decency should require neutering of all the dangerous breeds and their crosses.

    I have had dogs all my life and enjoy their companionship. I am aware that they can bite under certain circumstances – any dog can – but the evidence is overwhelming that four breeds and their crosses are heavily over-represented in the mauling stats. Phase them out.

    Why are we pussy-footing around letting a few misguided idiots dictate the terms that allow potentially ferocious animals access to kids and old folk. I simply don’t buy the garbage that “my dog is different” or “its not the dog’s fault, its my fault” or “he is great around kids”. That’s junk that has been disproved too many times at huge cost to a baby’s face.

    Time for someone with balls to take some logic action.

    • MaryLou

      Agreed. But as a brand new, first time dog owner, I’m finding out the hard way that there’s an awful lot more goes into raising Any well trained dog than good intentions. At month three, and struggling – the difference between us and other newbie or not so good owners, is we really want what’s right so are spending the time (and money!!!) to get it right.

      It’s brought home to me is that dogs – any dogs – shouldn’t be so freely available. Whilst I know it’s not malicious, even our determined but uneducated efforts haven’t managed to stop a really sweet lab chewing on us, and believe me – it hurts. How much worse, without all the time and money we are putting into this animal?

    • Muffin

      Should apply to your children as well, age 16 down.

    • Aucky

      Right on Doc45. I have been a dog owner too and having these breeds on your property or roaming loose is akin to leaving a loaded rifle unattended. I’m totally over the owners shedding crocodile tears after the event and leaving small children disfigured or senior cits traumatised while we pick up the massive health care bills.

    • HR

      I agree. Breed specific bans don’t work. What can work is destruction of dangerous dogs and prosecutions of owners. If the laws we have were enforced properly the problem would reduce. Police/dog rangers should be allowed to impound any dog they deem menacing, or roaming, or if it has attacked someone immediately destroy it. HNZ should enforce its policy of no animals (dogs) in their houses.

      Dodgy owners are getting around the laws by registering their “menacing” breed as a cross of something else, or as a different breed entirely and it is going unchecked. This over-represents some breeds in the statistics when they probably weren’t the breed or cross of breed to blame. You can go and register your pitbull puppy as a Bichon cross and no one will check.

      I agree it is a massive problem and something needs to be done, but the action taken needs to be able to work or it becomes toothless (pardon the pun). Breed specific bans have been shown not to work in the States. Proper enforcement of the existing laws would be a great start and perhaps a requirement that when you register your dog it must be signed off by a vet that it is the breed stated, or it comes with the correct papers from the reputable breeder. If you are serious about owning a dog, none of this should be an issue. Same as having a secure yard, training your dog, providing proper care.


      • jaundiced

        I don’t get the argument that banning certain breeds won’t work. Certain breeds are over represented in dog attacks. When I read a headline about a dog attack I always ask myself if it is one of those breeds and they nearly always are. So taking these dogs out of the hands of irresponsible owners (if you still want to blame the owners) to me is a no brainer.
        Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims, these breeds are a known risk.
        And to those owners who say ‘my dog isn’t like that’, they never are… until they do.

        • HR

          Have a read of the link I posted above. Its quite interesting and changed my thinking on the issue a bit. I also did a bit of digging around some on the internet on other states that had reversed breed specific bans as they didn’t work for various reasons.

          • Usaywot

            Why haven’t breed bans worked? People keep saying this but I’d like to know why. Certain breeds are over represented in attacks. If those breeds are banned and, yes, I know they have been interbred, but wouldn’t the blood line gradually water down. Even as a first step there should be mandatory desexing as puppies of dangerous breeds with large fines for failure to do so. .

          • HR

            I’m not really sure why, but I think if the registration laws were tighter it may work better. I seems to be a reaction to ban things without really looking into the issue. I can point to the recent coverage of MSSA firearms, the gun control people looking to ban them when they really weren’t the issue.

            Look at it another way (and I know this is very simplistic, but hopefully I can communicate my point clearly!) If we looked at all fatal car crashes and said that speed kills and some Subarus are pretty fast, we think we should have a registration law that said you have to pay an extra $500.00 per year to own a Subaru. Now, if that were the case but you really wanted a Subaru, and you could buy a Subaru but register it as a Volvo, a not so honest person might do it to get around the restriction. If lots of not so honest people did this and the Volvo registered Subaru’s started getting crashed, then Volvo’s would look dangerous. Do you then ban Volvo’s? Would it solve the problem or would people then register Subaru’s as Toyotas? You could ban Subarus outright, but there are other fast cars out there. Do you look then at why cars in general are being crashed, and find that 18-25 year old males seem to be over represented in all crashes, and do something about them rather than ban a type of car?

            As I said, really simplistic. My point is, you can get around having a particular breed as the current registration rules stand, and some of the breeds the media hype as dangerous probably weren’t the actual breed at all.

            I’m totally for something to be done to reduce dog attacks, but I think that banning something rarely works, and that there are usually other issues in play.

  • Sally

    I wish the Herald would include as a by- line on all Bryce Edwards anti government raves each week his description he uses on Twitter ” anti-establishment and lecture in politics” .
    His week in politics and mine are completely different.
    Missed all reference to Labour and Little’s bad polling.
    However it full of innuendo of Key’s wealth including raising an issue that Key bought his house in Hawaii for $10. Which is untrue however the idea has been planted with those with KDS to repeat and add to the lies they already tell about Key. This is how these lies.
    Edwards is full of praise of Little – great week for Labour.
    Maybe Herald should include a by-line Bryce Edwards is a 7 percenter.

    • Hard1

      Edwards really enjoys his work. He even adds a little dissenting opinion at the end of his diatribes to make himself look balanced. The fact is rich people have a lot of money and have to put it somewhere. That’s why Singapore and Hong Kong are so successful. Shut down NZ offshore trusts and the money simply goes elsewhere, a nett loss.
      Showing his intellectual vacuity, nowhere does he question the lack of American names in the data, which points to a well coordinated hit-job by the Americans against the Russians and the Chinese. Aren’t the Americans the richest country on earth? They all pay their full taxes? Get outta here, Edwards, you are a lefty shill.

  • Well done Mr Amstrong. Earned.

  • Aucky

    Emmerson’s cartoon in this mornings Herald plumbs new depths. It is an outright racial slur on Bill English and I’m not prepared to detail the link here in case the Deputy PM demands an apology or more from those who published it.

    • Yup, truly disgusting. (i had posted the image in this discussion, I have since decided to remove it)

      • Spiker

        Thanks for posting anyway, I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.

    • OneTrack

      I haven’t seen it but I find Emmersons cartoons either puerile or impossible to see what he is getting at unless the reader is a hard leftist.

  • Korau

    Isn’t the world fantastic, despite the doom and gloom merchants?

    I’ve been sitting here running Android on my non touchscreen laptop using a freely available (beta) programme and mouse. It runs well and is pretty stable.

    The riches available just for the effort of fetching are astounding.

  • Hard1

    I would like to say a big thank you to Helen Kelly and Andrew Little for sending movie production companies off to other countries. Thanks to your care for workers and strongly held principles, the industry is withering and talent is bleeding.
    Two things bring the wealth that comes with major movie productions. Breadth and strength of talent, on contract, and negotiated tax reductions with the government concerned.
    Thanks to the shrill outcry from the left, the boom days are over. A movie can be made anywhere. The talent just gets on a plane. Another hit job well done. Proud?

    • kereru

      The politics of envy and its consequences for the nation writ large.

      • Hard1

        So correct. Have you noticed that everyone who criticizes the rich wants more money?

  • Korau

    “A United States District Court judge has ruled that Pastafarianism, the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), is not a religion.

    Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, brought the case after being denied access to Pastafarian literature and religious items while behind bars. Cavanaugh argued that he is an avid Pastafarian, has the FSM tattoos to prove it, and should therefore be allowed “the ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion” while on the inside.”

    When will the loons in NZ agitate to make the praying to spaghetti an officially sanctioned religion?

    • Spiker

      Do religions require official sanction? From who & why? Wouldn’t that be some sort of mind control? Frankly if someone wants to pray to a sky fairy or spaghetti who is anyone else to say ones more deserving of approval?

    • Usaywot

      I just heard on the news that NZ has just made someone an official marriage celebrant in the Pastafarian church. Honestly! Talk about taking the mick! The celebrant is performing his/her first wedding this weekend of two people dressed as pirates. Unbelievable nonsense. it reminds me of Meteria Turei for some reason. Funny that.

      • Isherman

        That ‘someone’ is of course Nandor Tanczos. Mind you, a celebrant can perform legally recognised wedding to cater for any belief or theme, and as silly as they may be, if people want some weird or wonderful ceremony that’s not traditional I don’t see a huge problem with it.
        When I was younger, I had ideas that a Vampiric Wedding held at Castle Bran (Dracula’s castle) in Romania would be quite cool.

        • Usaywot

          Funnily enough I have been to and heard of several “themed” weddings and in every case the marriage hasn’t lasted. Now, I am sure there are many that have but it seems to me that if you are going to dress up as a carrot ( yes, that’s one I know of) or something equally weird on your wedding day you are not taking the whole thing seriously.

          • Isherman

            A carrot??, yep that’s pretty out there. I know of people that have had themed weddings, such as Celtic themed ones, or Wiccan handfasting ceremonies etc, which have lasted, but I agree that however you choose to celebrate it, taking it seriously would tend to help:)

        • hookerphil

          I guess a few people would think they did marry a vampire when all the blood/money is being sucked out of them.

          • Isherman

            Heh, hard to disagree there.

          • johcar

            Been there. Had that done to me…. :)

  • continuing Labour and the MSM’s hit job on Bill English yesterday, the cartoon suggests that he would be a slave owner

  • XCIA

    If you wonder why those of the left persuasion are basically stupid, its because they are perpetually outraged about something or other – “Research by Robert Sapolsky, a professor of neurology and neuroendocrinology, found that moaning for more than 30 minutes leads to elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Over time repeated bouts of negativity cause the hippocampus to shrink, resulting in “declines in cognitive function, including the ability to retain information and adapt to new situations”.

    • kereru

      I think that applies to the IDS (Israel Derangement Syndrome) as well. Perhaps the bleeding hearts could consider the blatant hypocrisy of Palestinian leaders.

      ‘The brother of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is hospitalized in critical condition at Assuta Medical Center in Tel Aviv. His admission to the Israeli hospital took place in secret.

      Abu Lawi has been treated and hospitalized at the luxurious private Tel Aviv hospital previously. After each round of treatment in Israel, he returns to his home in Qatar.

      In the past two years, the Assuta Medical Center has treated two other members of the Abbas family. In summer 2014, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers in Gush Etzion, Abbas’s wife, Amina, underwent leg surgery at Assuta. Moreover, just six months ago, Abbas’s brother-in-law underwent a life saving heart operation at the same hospital.’


      Moreover, just six months ago, Abbas’s brother-in-law underwent a life saving heart operation at the same hospital.

      • johnandali

        I’m sure that the conspiracy theorists will be accusing Israel of implanting microchips in them to provide information about Palestinian terrorism.

  • axeman

    I see the PM has asked the reserve bank to reconsider it position after someone at NewHub leaked information ab out the OCR rate drop. I note the organisation has apologised unreservedly, as they should.
    I would agree only if Newshub outs the source of the leak and they are fined a decent amount to let them know of the consequences of not following the rules.
    But knowing the left wing bias the media has it will get swept under the carpet and the concerned journalist will get a slap with a wet bus ticket.
    What confuses me is why the other media is not going out guns blazing as these action have now hurt all of them.

    • Platinum Fox

      While I understand the reasoning behind the RBNZ Governor’s decision to cease the practice of holding lock-ups, thereby eliminating any prospect of a third party leak, I would prefer a more severe penalty on NewShub such as cancelling its accreditation to send representatives to future lock-ups for a period.
      I agree with the PM that there is value in having informed commentary on the decisions of the RBNZ and that is facilitated by allowing qualified commentators access to the documentation while it is under embargo.

  • Hard1

    There has been a lot of debate about dog attacks, and for good reason. This has been going on without change for too long. A new law requiring all dogs be muzzled in public would be a great start. Fine $500, or you don’t get your dog back.

    • honeybadger

      All dogs? don’t be silly, they don’t enforce the rules they have in place now where certain dogs are supposed to be muzzled, the only time they do, is usually after some sort of incident

      • Hard1

        That’s where it starts, and that’s why nothing gets done. Yes, muzzle all dogs, which can bite, in public areas. The one’s with no teeth exempted.
        Mate if bicycle helmets can be compulsory, then the only objection to muzzling all dogs is the vanity of the owner. The dog doesn’t give a proverbial. Silliness is not liking the appearance of your dog wearing a muzzle.

        • HR

          At least have them on a leash and under control?

        • KGB

          Our Lab picked up stones on the race and accidentally swallowed them in excitement. After 4 surgeries to remove those big enough to cause blockages we tried muzzling in desperation.
          After 3 months of muzzling to break the habit, we had to re-home her to a town family without metal.
          I can assure you muzzling does affect the dog. She hated it, and was a ‘different’ dog. It was her misery that made us give her up.
          Just saying ?

    • KGB

      As a dog lover I would oppose muzzling, but you are right, there must be change.
      Statistically these attacks mostly occur on private property, so we need to be mindful of laws that punish good owners or good dogs. (Registration & chipping as example)
      I hope LU looks at the shocking lack of prosecutions under current laws. And the back yard mixed breeding industry I see every day on Facebook community pages.
      Dog breeding without licence would be a good place to start. But no law will change statistics without unforgiving enforcement.

      • honeybadger

        KGB, what do you think microchipping does? Only the responsible owner does the chipping….

        • KGB

          That was my point?

        • johnandali

          So if there is no micro-chip, should that be the end of the dog? Sounds okay. Do enforcement officers have the right gear to check any dogs they see? And should there be second-chances to dog owners whose un-chipped dogs are taken into custody? If you want to send a firm message to dog owners, then send it. No second chances. No chip, no more dog.

          • Asian_driver

            What is the failure rate of the chips?

          • honeybadger

            chips ‘migrate’, or they disappear, or become unreadable, so the chipping law doesn’t work

    • Union Jack

      Personally I reckon the whole dog registration system is just a really good money earner for local government but serves very little purpose at all except punish the people who don’t need punishing anyway i.e responsible dog owners.
      Most of these dog attacks happen with unregistered dogs who are poorly controlled by owners who are mostly losers themselves so how about targeting where the problem really lies.
      For starters how about if you have an unregistered dog and it attacks a person then it is a minimum mandatory two years imprisonment.

      • honeybadger

        You are right Jack, I had a discussion with the man in charge of Animal control in our area about the cost of registrations, and he finally conceded that we (responsible owners) are the ones who pay the price for the ones who don’t. I wouldn’t hold my breath for any reasonable laws put into place, but we will all see the instant ‘kneejerks’ that are shown every time a dog attack occurs

      • johnandali

        If you have an unregistered dog, then something bad should happen to you. Why should we wait for that dog to attack and injure anybody? Put the ambulance at the top of the cliff. Hit the unregistered owners hard. Enforce the rule of no dogs in state houses. Evict those who offend against that rule, with no second chances of getting another state house. If you want to get tough on something, get tough.

    • Oh Please

      Knee jerk. To say all dogs are the same is naive. Make a list of dangerous breeds and force them to be muzzled if you think it will do something – but while judges do nothing and laws are not enforced all you are doing is introducing a new tax for the middle class, law abiding, safe dog owning members of society.

      • Hard1

        “Data released at the New Zealand Association of Plastic Surgeons annual scientific meeting today showed there were more than 99,000 dog bites in New Zealand in the last 10 years.”

        Must be quite a few middle class law abiding owners hiding amongst this huge number of dog attacks, wouldn’t you agree?

        “How many dog attacks have there been in New Zealand?

        ACC deal with about 10,000 dog bite claims each year in New Zealand. However, not all dog bites require medical attention. I would estimate that this figure could be doubled to 20,000”

        Muzzle the dogs to stop attacks at the rate of 27 ACC claims PER DAY is unreasonable? That’s across the spectrum of lower, middle and upper class dog owners, without a doubt.

        • Oh Please

          Knee jerk. Over half a million dogs in the country legally registered, who knows how many unregistered. Vast majority of claims will be against the unregistered. You reckon a toy poodle and a bull mastif are the same risk? You are as bad as those who want to prosecute the driver going 1 kph over the limit.

          • Hard1

            I am simply stating that muzzling all dogs will prevent the muzzled dogs from biting people. I don’t care how you feel about your ego extension poodle or bull mastiff. You are saying, what, exactly?

          • Oh Please

            I’m saying you are mouthing without thinking. More ACC claims are made due to accidents around children – shall we muzzle them? More ACC claims are made around cattle / in kitchens. You are making a knee jerk reaction and using statistics in their raw form to justify it – just like the Labour party.

          • Hard1

            A dog attack is not an accident. A muzzle will prevent biting. That is a solution. If you have a better solution that will prevent attacks, by all means present it. If you wish to preserve the freedom of others to own semi-wild animals that may attack a human without warning, then you have every right to make that argument. Notwithstanding that the current situation is untenable, how does fining or locking up the OWNER prevent the dog from attacking again? The dog must be removed from the equation. Either slaughtered or muzzled.. But not same same.

          • Oh Please

            If you think that every dog is capable of attacking a human then you are sadly mistaken. That’s the same argument that says every muslim is a terrorist or every black is a criminal or every man is a rapist.

          • Hard1

            OK you win. I propose mouth safety belts for dogs.

          • Oh Please

            Ok, I’ll accept the win. But in the fashion of those right of centre I won’t tweet that you should be put down nor contact your employers to get you fired.

  • nellie
  • nellie

    Mangatepopo – eight years today. Remembering all those affected by the events of that day.
    Pete Zimmer
    LandSAR New Zealand’s photo.
    LandSAR New Zealand’s photo.

  • Aucky

    I heard that the second contingent of Army trainers has flown to Adelaide to join their Aussie counterparts for a two week period before flying on to Iraq. I recall absolute outrage from Phil Goff and Ron Mark when the first contingent was sent. Why the secrecy they said, there’s only a strand of barbed wire separates our trainers and slaughter by IS they said. I don’t recall any questions from Goff or Mark at QT this week. Funny that.

  • Keanne Lawrence

    Politics becomes poli-tiki’s again and the taxpayer is further burdened with more expenditure on the defunct native language as the bill gets another jolt from the Maori Language Act being passed.
    At a time when the Government is doing a bit of a clean up of defunct acts they are also adding to the number with new defunct Acts.
    Even with their own people rejecting it they think the answer is to force feed it to all children from day one when they enter the education system. This is a blatant infringement of their human rights as attempts are made to dumb down the future generations. After having been force fed for 20 years at enormous cost all it has achieved is to reduce the essential levels on literacy and numerous skills required now more than ever.
    The stupidity of it was illustrated in the house yesterday by first the Material Girl who made fumbling attempt to use the native dialect for a question. That was topped later by one half member on the Maori Party asking the other half leader a question leading to an exchange of native dialect. While that question was irrelevant the relevant question is “was that a lame attempt to illustrate they know their native dialect?” A simple yes or no will do to save on translation costs.

    • KatB

      From the very few clips of questions in the house I have seen, that seems to be Metiria’s MO. She starts with a question in Maori. To me it seems she reads the question, and not very fluently. She certainly doesn’t seem to speak the language. I’m not sure what she’s trying achieve or prove.