I don't care what it costs - my pets are like family

APN online survey results in The Daily Examiner - early morning of 6 May 2010 in response to the question How much do you spend on your pooch each year?

Who said bankers aren't in touch with real life? BankWest is obviously putting a little toe in water with its Social Indicator Series which covers everything from retirement, stay-at-home kids and state of the nation's piggy banks.

It even has a Family Pooch Index, with a national report also differentiated by states:

The latest in Bankwest's on-going Social Indicator Series has revealed that a dog's life certainly isn't cheap anymore, with Australian families spending more than $25,000 on their pet dog over its life-time.

The latest Bankwest Social Indicator Survey, the 'Family Pooch Index', revealed the average Australian family outlays $2,452 per year for the care of their canine, on top of their initial purchase of the pup of $585. Over the average life span of a dog, ten years, this equates to more than $25,000.

Not surprisingly, pet food and other gourmet doggy treats gobble up the bulk of the annual cost - $1200. This was followed by veterinary costs, at $450 per year, and additional dog care, such as grooming, dog walking, dog dietician and a dog trainer at $405 each per year.

The research also revealed what many of us have suspected for a long time, namely that half of Aussie pet owners consider their pet to be equally important as their kids. An overwhelming 96 per cent of respondents consider their pet as a member of their family.

Here are some of the findings in the 2010 NSW report Pets NSW:

* The research has revealed that pet owners think the cost of a pet dog is a small price to pay in return for what a dog provides its family. Survey respondents noted their love for dogs, the companionship provided by a 'man's best friend' and the peace of mind and security a pet canine creates as the main reasons for owning a dog.

*.....the average New South Wales family outlays $2,600 per year for the care of their canine, on top of their initial purchase of the pup of $580. Over the average life span of adog, ten years, this equates close to $27,000.

 NSW is the state that spends the most on pets. WA spends the least.
 25 per cent of Aussie dog owners pay a dog groomer to maintain their dogs appearance.
 50 per cent of Aussie dog owners buy their dog gifts for special occasions
e.g. birthday, Christmas etc.
 80 per cent of Aussie dog owners have a dog for companionship
 Over 30 per cent of dog owners have a dog to encourage them to exercise. 5 per cent of people have their pets in their will.
 11 per cent of respondents said they regret having a pet.
 8 per cent of people take their pet with them on holiday.

* Not surprisingly, spend-thrift Generation Y pay out the most when it comes to the upkeep of their pet dog. Interestingly though, over 10% of Gen Ys surveyed said that their parents fork out the cash to cover all these incurred costs.

Internet censorship - here's laffin' at you Stevo

Fair dinkum, it can't get better than this - proof positive that Stevo is a 24 carat dill.

Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy according to ITNews on the 4th May 2010: "ISPs will not be required to block circumvention attempts by their customers or end users," he said.

While he said it would be "irresponsible" of the Government to publish circumvention techniques, the Government took no measures to prevent other organisations from doing so."

The Australian Office of Privacy Commissioner on the same day giving Internet security tips highlighting circumnavigation techniques:

Anonymous Web Browsing

Use anonymous web surfing services such as:

• Anonym.OS LiveCD
  
• Tor (Anonymous Internet system, Opensource)
  
• Torpark (Tor Anonymous Internet system for portable USB drives)
  
• Anonymity 4 Proxy
  
• Annonymizer
  
• Freedom
  
• IDzap
  
• Norton Internet Security
  
• Ponoi
  
• Proxy Switcher
  
• Proxy4free
  
• The Cloak
  
• TheFreeSite.com: Anonymous Freebies
  
• httproxy (Firefox proxy switching tool, Opensource)

Further tips are available in Thomas C Greene's anonymity tips article published by The Register.

The 'Pros' & Cons Of Macca's 24 hour service

A version of this post was recently published in The Daily Examiner, apparently with the reference to sex services removed.

In the interests of allowing this Yamba resident to fully have her say:

Regarding Robert Earle's letter (Examiner 15th April) I say, beware of the marketing men. These were the same people who, in times past, sold snake oil as a cure all. All you have to do is watch ABC's The Gruen Transfer to understand that marketing is about selling people what they don't want or need and convincing people they can't do without it. Children pester their parents to go to MacDonalds because of the good, no, excellent marketing - it is a well known marketing ploy. These marketing people are the same people who market Easter in our stores just days after Christmas is over. Our best interests is not what they have in their minds.

As far as the No Campaign and attacks on the Chamber of Commerce - like they are the only people in Yamba to take part in the No Campaign - you must realise the Chamber of Commerce is only a small part of it. When you are open about it and discuss this invasion by MacDonalds more people are against it than for. These are the everyday people of Yamba. This brings me to another point - one of your letter writers (the few who are in the Yes camp) claimed that they didn't see the point of the petition against MacDonalds as many out of towners were signing it. Would these people also be called 'tourist's'? These are the people we want here, right? So we think we are pandering to the tourists with a Macdonald's but when they are so obviously telling us they don't want one here and come to the town because they like it as it is - we now ignore them? The Yes campaign can't have it both ways.

Can you imagine, if there is a Macdonald's and with the proposed changes to the Clarence Valley Local Environmental Plan which effectively allows prostitution in residential areas - Yamba will be the "Macca" of two 24 hour 'services'. Perhaps we will be voted number one town again - this time for all the wrong reasons and by the wrong people!

Celeste Warren
Yamba

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak at live.com.au for consideration.

It is 2010 isn't it - not 1950?

Sometimes one has to shake the head in wonderment.

Excerpt from a New Matilda article:

Apple's portable devices like the iPhone and the iPad are unlike laptop or desktop computers in that new applications can only be obtained through Apple's centralised App Store, a global marketplace for mobile applications and content. For an application to be available in the App Store, it must first be reviewed by Apple. The set of criteria on which the applications are appraised are not quite clear. According to Apple:

"Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."

While many applications get rejected for solid technical reasons, there are some recent controversial examples of applications that have fallen foul of these content rules.

The restrictions on "objectionable" content, for example, have led to several dictionary applications being rejected on the grounds that they contain obscene entries. And an electronic book reader was rejected because, among thousands of titles, it gave users access to the Kama Sutra.

The introduction of an adults-only category for applications eased some of these restrictions in that dictionaries were no longer censored — but any content more adult than a picture of a bikini-clad model is still unlikely to be approved.

Monsanto plays the smart@rse

I got the steely eye this month and a pointed reference to the need for 'somebody' to do a post on Monsanto to keep readers up to date and "Mr. Monsanto" on his/her toes - so here goes.

Some folk just can't help themselves - they have to try to go that one step too far.

This is Monsanto blogging last Tuesday mocking concerns about the environmental impact of GM seed varieties known as Roundup Ready; "It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's SUPERWEED!"....And finally, what the heck is a superweed? Seriously, this term gets thrown around a lot, primarily in non-agriculture venues. I imagine pigweed standing tall with a red cape, refusing to die. Glyphosate may no longer be able to kill these weeds, but that by itself doesn't make them "superweeds." There was a time when glyphosate wasn't around, and guess what? These weeds existed....

The first resistant weed –horseweed – was discovered in Delaware in 2000. But, I guess the mainstream media has decided weed resistance is now in vogue."

Yep, that's right! It's perfectly fine that wild weeds are developing spontaneous genetic responses to Roundup and other glyphosate products used as part of genetically modified grain and cotton agriculture.

Something which was pointed out in late 2009 in a PNAS article concerning the dicot weed Palmer's Pigweed; "This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology."

Nothing we at Monsanto need to worry about! After all there are at least 18 glyphosate resistant varieties of weed globally, but other herbicide manufacturers are having similar problems so ours doesn't really count.

And even though the media has been reporting on 'superweeds' since news first got out between 1987 and 1996 we'll just pooh pooh all this attention, reset that ticking clock to 2000, ignore the fact that the we knew about the potential for herbicide resistance long before putting GM seed on the market, that our patented meddling has created almost one new resistant variety each year and pretend it's really all the farmer's fault anyway.

Oh, well done Monsanto!

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

McDonald's Australia: Rubbishing Yamba

 

A letter to the editor in The Daily Examiner on 29 April 2010:

 

Rubbishing Yamba

HEATHER Lewis (The Daily Examiner letters, April 15) was mistaken when she attributed to me statements such as 'big numbers of school kids in Treelands Drive making a mess' and 'visitors wouldn't go there'.

Given Ms Lewis also remarks that she passes over some of my letters to the editor, these recent errors are hardly surprising. However, as Ms Lewis has raised the subject of 'making a mess' perhaps I should look at the propensity for McDonald's fast-food outlets to generate waste and become a focal point for branded litter.

Firstly, the McDonald's development application states that it intends to send certain trade waste into Yamba's sewer system with little more than a modern version of an in-ground concrete grease trap between itself and the sewerage treatment process (McDonald's Australia Limited, Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) March 2010, p.19). A matter which is of more than passing interest given the known limitations of the treatment plant, the fact that any plant upgrade is literally years away and McDonald's own figures suggest that it expects to sell thousands of cooked-on-premises items per average day.

Secondly, McDonald's is rather coy on the subject of its own in-house paper waste once this proposed 24-hour fast-food outlet is operational. It is likely that Australia-wide it creates approximately 20,816 tonnes of waste per annum with an estimated 26 per cent of this being paper/cardboard and only 40 per cent of total waste is possibly being recycled (Popai Sustainability 2008 & McDonald's Australia Ltd 2006). Grafton Regional Landfill currently accommodates approximately 7560 tonnes of commercial/industrial waste in fill per year (Clarence Valley Council, 2010) and another 24-hour McDonald's would potentially add up to somewhere between 17 to 30 tonnes of extra waste each year - or more in a worst case scenario in light of the fact that the company admits contaminated food packaging is unpopular with commercial recyclers.

Given this waste volume, one begins to wonder about any beneficial claims made by McDonald's in the development application.

Thirdly, litter is generated by McDonald's customers in considerable quantity. Clean Up Australia's own 2007/08 National Litter Index highlights the fact that in NSW McDonald's items made up over 14 per cent of all branded litter for that survey period, making it the leading branded litter found on footpaths and in gutters etc ( www.kab.org.au/litter-research/what-we-do/national-litter-index).

This despite McDonald's asserting for years that it has effective litter management in place.

In Britain in 2008/09 a two-day government contracted survey of 10 cities found that McDonald's items comprised approximately 29 per cent of all gutter litter share ( www.prnnewsire.co.uk). Again McDonald's was way ahead of any other branded fast-food litter. It would appear that McDonald's corporate legend should read 'In Litter We Trust'.

So along with further heavy traffic and peak period congestion along Treelands Drive, increased traffic on four residential roads, noise and odour issues in the vicinity of the store, possibly taking business from 'some local take-away food outlets' (SEE,pp. 22-42), and establishing a new focus for late night antisocial behaviour; it seems that Yamba can also expect an increase in the volume of street litter it experiences. All to enhance the interests of a businessman who does not live in the Clarence Valley and a foreign multinational which eventually repatriates most of its profit back to its head office overseas.

Elsewhere in the media there has been some talk of change for the better in relation to the McDonald's application. Now change in any town is inevitable, but such change should be sustainable, positive for the local economy, add to social cohesion and fill the expressed needs of the community generally. If proposed change does not meet these criteria it should be viewed with some suspicion.

In my opinion, McDonald's Australia does not attempt to do more than pay lip service to these four basic requirements - intent only on its own corporate imperatives. Imperatives which see it blithely state that the negative impacts of establishing a McDonald's in Yamba 'are restricted to a small percentage of the population', as though this makes those impacts of no consequence to the many local residents they may impinge upon (ibid,p.42).

As a resident in one of those streets which will feel the impact of council's decision I intend to fully exercise my rights as a local government elector and so strongly do I feel on this subject that, should Clarence Valley shire councillors continue their ever-growing list of disappointingly ill-conceived planning decisions and grant consent for the McDonald's development, this will necessarily inform how I fill out my ballot paper in 2012.

JUDITH M MELVILLE, Yamba

Well they can afford the water.....

Aunty ran with a story this week about a study which obviously hopes to find that people with higher incomes have leafy gardens:

"The University of Tasmania study aims to help urban landscapers design greener cities that satisfy their residents.

Findings from the three-year nationwide study will be used to plan leafier cities.

Professor James Kirkpatrick, who is leading the survey, says socio-economic status is the main influence on choice of garden.

"There was no relationship whatsoever between how close you were to your neighbours and what your garden was like, so quite dramatically different gardens can be right next door to each other," he said.

Professor Kirkpatrick says the tertiary-educated prefer leafy gardens, while bare turf was popular in gardens in poorer areas.

"It tends to be associated with income, the higher the income the higher the proportion of trees in front gardens, we found that for the whole of eastern Australian cities," he said."

The tertiary-educated have more aesthetically pleasing front yards? G'arn! Aside from the blindingly obvious fact that people with more money can afford to buy those leafy plants, pay increasingly hefty water bills and probably don't have physically demanding jobs and so aren't as bone-tired on their days off, all this study is telling me is that higher education gives life-long advantage.

The good professors collared $130,000 to prove that? And not for the first time either. Presumably there is more to this on-going study than Aunty has revealed so far. Otherwise taxpayers will have a right to feel browned-off.

Pic from Wall Jungle