I spoke to the Shire of Toodyay this morning about the proposed amendments to the Dog Local Law 2026.

The information on the Shire website had previously disappeared, but after speaking with the Shire, the information has now been reinstated.

The deadline for submissions has also been extended.

The new deadline is:

COB / 4.00pm, Thursday 30 April 2026

This matters because I was told very clearly that the Shire will not be treating petition signatures or petition comments as formal submissions.

That sucks.

It means this petition still matters. It shows concern. It shows numbers. It shows community sentiment. It shows that people care. It gives visibility to the issue.

I will still be sending a copy of the petition and the comments to councillors.

But it also means this:

If you want your view formally considered, you need to make your own submission to the Shire.

Not just sign the petition.

Not just comment under the petition.

Not just comment on Facebook.

A submission.

The more individual submissions the Shire receives, the harder it is for this issue to be brushed aside.

The person I spoke to explained that submissions will be collated and passed on through the proper process. Importantly, I was also told that if the public response shows enough concern that the proposed law should not go ahead as drafted, that can be reflected in the recommendation.

That is why this moment matters.

Right now, the important thing is people putting pen to paper, punching it out on their phone, or typing it on a keyboard and getting a submission done.

It does not need to be perfect.

It does not need to sound legal.

It needs to be yours.

Submissions can be sent to:

Email:
submissions@toodyay.wa.gov.au

Post:
Shire of Toodyay
PO Box 96
Toodyay WA 6566

In person:
Shire Office
15 Fiennes Street
Toodyay WA 6566

Shire notice / submission info:
https://www.toodyay.wa.gov.au/publicnotices/dog-local-law-2026/219

Change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/amend-the-proposed-dog-laws-before-they-harm-responsible-owners

Our original submission:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tv5Vo0_7rJ7gH5-8jlMzCFse94FukyuC/view

I also suggest emailing individual councillors so they are directly aware of the level of public concern.

Councillor emails:

Cr.McKeown@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.dival@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.vanderheyden@toodyay.wa.gov.au
Cr.Madacsi@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.mccormick@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.prater@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.mills@toodyay.wa.gov.au

I also ask the Shire to keep the public informed about when this matter will be considered by Council after submissions have been collated. People should not have to chase information after taking the time to participate in a public submission process.

This is not just about “dog control”.

This is about people.

It is about animals.

It is about responsible dog owners.

It is about rural and semi-rural life.

It is about people without cars.

It is about disability and accessibility.

It is about people who are unfamiliar with formal submission processes.

It is about people who may not be confident with technology.

It is about people who rely on animals for social connection, mental health, stability and community participation.

It is about making better laws, not worse ones.

The Dog Act 1976 needs to change.

It is now 2026.

People’s lives have changed.

Our relationships with animals have changed.

The way people live with, travel with, care for and rely on animals has changed dramatically.

But that is the bigger picture.

The immediate issue is this:

The Shire of Toodyay should not make a local law that creates more problems for responsible dog owners while the broader State law remains outdated.

We are not asking the Shire to override the Dog Act.

We are asking the Shire not to make things worse.

We are asking the Shire to pause, listen, consult properly, and get it right the first time.

Bad local laws do not just create “rules”.

They create fines.

They create financial hardship.

They create distress.

They create exclusion.

They create confusion.

They can punish good people who are trying to do the right thing.

Toodyay is not just a suburban council area.

It includes residential, semi-rural and rural communities.

Dog ownership does not look the same across that landscape.

A one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect how people and dogs actually live in places like Toodyay.

For many people, a dog is not just a pet.

A dog can be family.

A dog can be support.

A dog can be an emotional anchor.

A dog can be the reason someone leaves the house.

A dog can be the reason someone talks to another human being that day.

A dog can be the bridge back into community life.

For me, that dog is Bali.

I was receiving psychological care from Dr Richard Taylor in Toodyay until he passed away last year. My psychiatrist in Northam and I both recognise the importance of having Bali with me.

Bali is my 14-year-old Tibetan Spaniel.

He is not a legally recognised service animal.

But that does not mean his role in my life is insignificant.

I live with severe complex PTSD. Bali has been an emotional anchor for me. At times, having him present has helped others understand what was really happening for me when I was in crisis.

Bali does not wear a collar. He does not wear a leash. He goes everywhere with me. I can provide photos and videos showing how he behaves with me, how he travels with me, and how he remains under control.

If Bali is in a beach trolley, under my control, why is that treated as a problem?

Why can he not travel safely?

Why can he not access public transport in a way that allows me to participate in the world?

If someone does not have a vehicle and relies on public transport, these rules can mean they are excluded from recreation, socialisation, community participation and basic mobility with their animal.

That is not a small issue.

That is a social inclusion issue.

That is a mental health issue.

That is an animal welfare issue.

That is a community issue.

Then there is Red.

Red is a red hound, possibly crossed with cattle dog.

I take Red down to the park with his owner, who also has PTSD and is physically unable to take him down and give him the exercise he needs because of medical issues.

That matters.

This is practical community support.

This is helping a person with trauma and medical limitations.

This is helping a dog get the exercise, stimulation and handling he needs.

Dog parks do not suit Red. Not because he is a problem dog, but because fenced dog parks often become places where people stand around gossiping while dogs are left to manage themselves.

Other people’s dogs should not be expected to supervise, entertain, correct or absorb the behaviour of dogs whose owners are not actively engaged with them.

That is not fair on the dogs.

That is not fair on responsible dog owners.

Red is much better in an open space where he can do what he loves: chase a ball. He will do that for hours. With the right handler, he is focused, stimulated and exercised.

Red is not Bali.

Bali is the one who is calm and happy to sit quietly with me.

Red needs movement, exercise, purpose and engagement.

A responsible handler recognises the difference.

Then there is Cyrus.

Cyrus is a male Rottweiler in Northam.

A couple of weeks ago, I took him through town in Northam, along the main street, and down to Bernard Park by attaching him safely to a beach trolley and letting him pull it along.

I was not physically holding him the whole time, but he was still under my control.

Cyrus enjoys walking.

He trusts me.

He listens to me.

The trolley setup meant I could physically regain control if needed, and he was not roaming loose or uncontrolled.

Two police officers saw Cyrus and responded positively. Technically, depending on how the law is read, someone could argue that this breached the Dog Act. But in practical reality, Cyrus was controlled, calm, supervised and safe.

Dog laws need to recognise real-world control, not just one narrow image of a person holding a short lead.

The real question should be:

Is the dog supervised?

Is the dog responsive?

Is the dog safe?

Can the dog be brought under effective control if needed?

In Cyrus’s case, the answer was yes.

I have also done this with Red and Bali — Red pulling the beach trolley while Bali sat in the back. They both had the best time. Even the vet reacted with surprise because it is not something you see every day.

But that is the point.

I think outside the box when it comes to animal welfare and enrichment.

Dogs do not only need to be walked around a block.

They do not only need to be placed in a fenced dog park.

They need meaningful stimulation.

They need safe experiences.

They need to use their brains, their instincts, their trust and their relationship with their handler.

When a dog comes home tired in the right way — not distressed, not injured, not pushed too far, but mentally satisfied — that is good welfare.

They have been exercised.

They have been stimulated.

They have been fulfilled.

Responsible, creative, safe handling should not be punished simply because it looks unusual.

Then there is Douggy.

Douggy is a trauma dog with extreme anxiety.

His owner has trauma too.

Douggy is an anchor for her, and Douggy himself is also a trauma dog.

He was saved from being used as a fighting dog.

He is a Pit Bull Staffy cross.

That history matters.

It does not mean he should be written off.

It means he needs understanding, structure, space, trust and responsible handling.

What Douggy wants is simple: a ball, a stick, space, and someone he trusts.

He will chase a stick all day.

He once chased a four-metre-long branch at Kings Park for hours.

Literally hours.

At Scarborough Beach, he had eyes for the ball and for me. People were able to move around him without issue because he was focused, engaged and under control.

There was one incident where someone asked why he peed on them. The answer is probably simple: they were on the sand, in or near the same spot where he usually sits and pees when he goes to Scarborough Beach.

It was not aggression.

It was dog behaviour in a familiar place.

Douggy shows another reason why these laws need nuance.

A dog with anxiety may not thrive in a crowded dog park.

A dog with trauma may not behave like a dog that has never been through trauma.

A dog saved from being used in dogfighting needs more than punishment and suspicion.

With space, routine, trust and a job to do, that same dog can be calm, focused, safe and fulfilled.

Anxiety does not automatically mean danger.

Trauma does not automatically mean danger.

Sometimes the safest and kindest thing for a dog is open space, calm handling and meaningful exercise.

Then there is Xavier.

Xavier is my nine-and-a-half-week-old Staffy pup.

He is still little.

He is happy to rest.

If I need to travel, I could safely put him in a crate.

I need to go to Northam with Xavier in a couple of days so he can visit his old family, because I made that promise to him.

In practical terms, this should be simple.

I should be able to put him in a crate and travel with him safely.

But because of the Dog Act, public transport rules, and outdated assumptions about animals in public life, I cannot simply use the transport available to me.

Instead, I have to rely on someone else with a vehicle to come down to Perth, pick me and Xavier up, and take us there.

That is not modern.

That is not accessible.

That is not fair.

The Dog Act was written in 1976.

It is now 2026.

People’s lives have changed.

Our relationships with animals have changed.

Many people no longer treat dogs as backyard accessories.

They are companions, family, emotional anchors, and part of how people participate in the world.

The law needs to catch up.

And while we wait for the State law to catch up, local governments should not be making local laws that create more hardship, more fines, more exclusion and more distress for responsible dog owners.

This also affects tourism and local spending.

People travel with dogs.

People plan day trips around dogs.

People look for dog-friendly places to walk, visit, socialise and spend money.

For example, people take dogs to places like Gidgegannup, in the City of Swan, for rural-style recreation and dog-friendly outings.

Those sorts of trips create community benefit, animal welfare benefit and local spending.

If Toodyay makes its local law too restrictive, it risks discouraging responsible dog owners from visiting, walking, socialising and spending money in the Shire.

That is lost goodwill.

Lost inclusion.

Potentially lost tourism dollars.

It does not just affect residents.

It affects visitors.

It affects cafes.

It affects shops.

It affects recreation.

It affects whether responsible dog owners see Toodyay as a welcoming place or a place to avoid.

The Shire has a choice.

It can make law that treats responsible dog owners as a problem waiting to be fined.

Or it can make law that recognises responsible control, animal welfare, rural realities, social inclusion, mental health, public transport limitations and common sense.

This is also why the submission process itself needs to be looked at.

A petition should matter.

That is the whole idea of a petition.

It allows people to come together, sign a document, and put their opinion forward collectively.

Many people are not familiar with formal submission processes.

Many people do not know what to write.

Many people are not confident with technology.

Many people live with disability, trauma, anxiety, literacy barriers, digital access barriers, or simply do not know how council processes work.

If the system says, “We will not count petition comments as submissions,” then the system is already excluding some people.

That is an accessibility issue.

That is a disability issue.

That is a democratic participation issue.

So yes, please continue to sign this petition.

The petition still matters.

It shows public concern.

It shows community sentiment.

It shows that people want to be heard.

But also make a submission, because right now the Shire has said submissions are what count.

Please do all three:

Sign the petition.

Make a submission.

Email the councillors.

Tell the Shire that responsible dog owners need to be listened to.

Tell the Shire that dog laws must recognise real life.

Tell the Shire that animals are not just problems to be regulated.

Tell the Shire that responsible control can look different depending on the dog, the person, the setting, the equipment and the circumstances.

Tell the Shire that local laws should not cause avoidable hardship.

Tell the Shire to keep the public informed about when this matter will go before Council.

Tell councillors directly that this law should not proceed unless the community has been properly heard.

Tell the Shire to make better laws, not worse ones.

Important links:

Shire notice / submission info:
https://www.toodyay.wa.gov.au/publicnotices/dog-local-law-2026/219

Change.org petition:
https://www.change.org/p/amend-the-proposed-dog-laws-before-they-harm-responsible-owners

Our original submission:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tv5Vo0_7rJ7gH5-8jlMzCFse94FukyuC/view

Submissions close:

COB / 4.00pm, Thursday 30 April 2026

Send submissions to:

submissions@toodyay.wa.gov.au

Address them to:

Chief Executive Officer
Shire of Toodyay

Councillor emails:

Cr.McKeown@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.dival@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.vanderheyden@toodyay.wa.gov.au
Cr.Madacsi@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.mccormick@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.prater@toodyay.wa.gov.au
cr.mills@toodyay.wa.gov.au

Please do not assume the petition is enough.

It is not.

But please do keep signing it.

Sign it.

Share it.

Comment on it.

Then make your own submission as well.

The petition shows community sentiment.

The submission is what the Shire says it will formally consider.

We need both.

For Bali.

For Red.

For Cyrus.

For Douggy.

For Xavier.

For responsible dog owners.

For people who rely on their animals.

For people with disability, trauma, mental health conditions, physical limitations and transport barriers.

For dogs who need more than a fence and a rulebook.

For better laws, not worse ones.