Are We All Barking Up Different Trees?

 What if I told you that two people could read exactly the same Council proposal, reach completely opposite conclusions, and both have perfectly reasonable arguments?

That's pretty much what's happening with Redland City Council's proposed changes to animal management laws on Coochiemudlo Island.

And the more I look at it, the more interesting it gets.

Recent community discussions have raised concerns about allowing dogs on-leash along additional sections of our foreshore. There are questions about wildlife, tranquillity, visitor numbers and whether the changes are appropriate for our island.

Another perspective has emerged, questioning whether Council's proposed legal wording and maps actually match what its explanatory notes describe.

One person is asking whether the changes are a good idea.

Another is asking whether the changes have been properly documented.

Both are asking important questions.

But I started wondering. How many other perspectives are we missing?

And that's when I imagined a circle.

Imagine a circle with the survey in the middle. Now divide that circle into slices, like a pie. Each slice represents someone looking at the same proposed changes, but from a different perspective.

👉There's the dog owner who wants somewhere pleasant to walk their best mate.

👉The resident who enjoys a peaceful morning swim without dogs running around.

👉The wildlife advocate thinking about shorebirds feeding along the water's edge.

👉The parent watching children play on the sand.

👉The person with limited mobility who may have different needs when accessing public spaces.

👉The local business owner wondering whether more dog-friendly areas might attract visitors.

👉The Council officer who has to enforce the rules.

👉The ratepayer wondering who's paying for the signs, bins and enforcement.

👉And the long-term resident who remembers how Coochie used to be, sitting alongside the newcomer who wonders why some of the restrictions exist in the first place.

Same island. Same proposal.

Very different perspectives.

And we're only halfway around the circle.

What happens when we add the less obvious voices?

🤔An environmental scientist might ask what evidence exists about the impact of dogs on our particular shoreline.

🤔A responsible dog trainer might wonder whether education and designated walking areas could improve behaviour.

🤔A tourism operator might see an opportunity, while someone concerned about infrastructure might see additional pressure on our ferry, facilities and beaches.

🤔Someone thinking about future generations might ask what precedent we're setting for the island 20 years from now.

🤔A systems thinker might connect dog access with visitor numbers, waste management, shoreline erosion, wildlife habitats and enforcement.

🤔A conflict-resolution specialist might ask whether people are really arguing about dogs, or about freedom, safety, respect and sharing public spaces.

🤔And someone approaching the whole thing from first principles might ask the most basic question of all:

What problem is Council actually trying to solve?

Good question, that one.

Because until we understand the problem, how can we decide whether the proposed solution is the right one?

Here's where the circle becomes really interesting

Imagine two residents answering YES to the survey. One believes dogs should be welcome on more of Coochie's beaches.The other believes limited on-leash access could be a reasonable compromise, provided environmentally sensitive areas remain protected.

Same answer. Different reasoning.

Now imagine two residents answering NO.One doesn't want dogs on those beaches under any circumstances.The other supports additional on-leash access in principle but doesn't believe the proposal is sufficiently clear to endorse.

Again, same answer. Completely different reasoning.

A YES doesn't tell us why someone supports a proposal. And a NO doesn't necessarily mean they oppose the underlying idea.

Yet those responses can end up looking identical when the results are counted.

That's worth thinking about.

And then there's the question nobody can afford to overlook

Council's consultation material includes a proposal to allow on-leash dog walking in some foreshore and seashore areas of Coochiemudlo Island.

The survey has now been updated to include a specific question asking whether residents support this.That's a welcome addition.

However, concerns have been raised that the draft Register of Animals in Public Places and its maps still identify areas as prohibited, despite the explanatory material showing proposed on-leash access.

There's also a question about Laurie Burns Recreation Reserve, where earlier Council correspondence reportedly referred to an unfenced off-leash area, while the consultation describes on-leash walking.

These discrepancies need clarification.

Because there's a fairly fundamental principle at stake here.

Before asking people whether they support a change, surely we need to make certain everyone understands exactly what is proposed to change.

Otherwise, we risk collecting answers to different questions while believing we're measuring community agreement. And I wonder how often that happens in public consultation more broadly.

The missing slice might be yours

We've now identified at least 20 perspectives, plus one more that sits above the entire circle. The survey designer.

That person has a particularly important responsibility: making sure the questions and supporting information allow residents to provide meaningful feedback.

A well-designed consultation should do more than collect preferences. It should help decision-makers understand the reasons, concerns and conditions behind those preferences.

Which brings us to something else.

There may be perspectives we haven't considered at all.

Perhaps someone who regularly fishes from the foreshore sees something the rest of us don't. Perhaps a wildlife rescuer has observations that could change how we think about particular areas.

Perhaps a dog owner has a practical solution that hasn't occurred to Council.

Or perhaps there's a perspective sitting somewhere outside our circle that would change the entire conversation.

I rather like that possibility.

So, what should we do with all these perspectives?

We don't have to agree with every one of them.

We don't even have to give them equal weight. Some concerns will be supported by stronger evidence than others, and some outcomes will involve genuine trade-offs.But we can consider them before deciding.We can ask what evidence supports a claim.We can distinguish between something we know and something we fear might happen.We can consider whether there's a better alternative that hasn't been proposed.And we can recognise that someone who disagrees with us might be seeing something we've overlooked.

That's not indecision.That's critical thinking.

Before you tick YES or NO...

Council's consultation closes on 22 November 2026.

You can review the proposals and have your say through Redland City Council's consultation page.

I'd encourage everyone to read the explanatory notes, look carefully at the proposed maps and consider the implications for our island.

And if something isn't clear, ask Council to clarify it. You can also explain your reasoning in your submission or email council at rcc@redland.qld.gov.au  rather than relying solely on YES or NO & comment responses. (If an email is sent, council are obliged to reply 😜

Because this isn't just about where dogs can walk.

It's about how we make decisions that affect a community we all share.

Here's my question for you.

If the survey is sitting in the middle of our circle, and every slice represents a different, valuable perspective...

Which slice are you looking from?

And perhaps more importantly, which perspective haven't you considered yet?

I'd genuinely love to hear what we've missed.

PS/Thank you to Angela and Andrew for providing these different perspectives, prompting me to think through this issue from as many different angles as possible, with the help of my AI buddy, of course  😜