Mary Garden - Author

Articles by Mary (Click underlined to view)

2004, 'Abuse in the name of Krishna', Insight (Magazine), July, pp. 32-35

2004, 'A Sacred Cow: Banning Cats and Dogs from Eco-villages', Grassroots Magazine, No 161 (Feb/March), pp. 55-58.

2004, 'Living Down Under - paws for thought', Dogs Monthly (UK), Vol 21, No 12, pp. 28-30.

2003, The Trouble with Gurus - Australian Financial Review 21 November, pp 6-7 (Review Section).

2002, 'The unholy war against divorce', Journal of Social Alternatives, Brisbane: University of Queensland, Vol 21, No4, pp. 52 - 55.

2002, Mind Control and Religious Cults, (a revised version of the 1990 Nature & Health article) http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/mindcontrol.html

2002, 'Pro-Marriage Politicians Rely on Flawed Studies', Womensenews, New York, October 9. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1066/context/archive

2002, 'Dogs, Cats and Ecovillages', Permaculture South Australia, Adelaide: Permaculture Association of South Australia, Winter, pp. 11-13.

2002, 'Alarmist tales divorced from reality: Mary Garden challenges some damaging myths about ending a marriage', The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, pp. 6-7s

2002, 'No Pets in Paradise - Eco-village living', Pets n People, Brisbane: Barkin' Mad Media, Volume 5, Issue 24, pp. 44- 46.

1991, 'Guava Garden - a journey of culinary seduction', Black Possum Diary 1992 - A Celebration of Life, Maleny: Black Possum Publishing Cooperative Society Ltd, p. 89.

1990, 'Mind Control and Religious Cults', Nature & Health, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 32-35.

THE UNHOLY WAR ON DIVORCE

(Published in The University of Queensland's Social Alternatives Journal , Vol. 21, No. 4, Spring 2002)

A recent study funded by a conservative think-tank based in New York, The Institute for American Values, claims that people who divorce are no happier than unhappy couples who stay married. The study found that most spouses who stay in difficult marriages are much happier five years later. The lead researcher was University of Chicago sociology professor, Linda Waite, co-author of the book The Case For Marriage: Why Married People are Healthier, Happier and Better Off Financially (Waite and Gallagher, 2000).

This study adds to a pro-marriage movement and was described by one of its proponents as 'one of the most important tools in our arsenal'. Here in Australia some of our politicians, religious leaders and journalists latch on to such studies for their own crusades. They too want us to blame divorce for high crime and suicide rates as well as the drug-taking and low employment of our youth. They warn us that divorce is rapidly increasing, dragging in its wake more and more damaged children. Divorce has become the modern scapegoat for many of society's perceived ills and hence there is sometimes talk about 'the good old days' - before so many married women went out to work, before no-fault divorce, pensions for sole parents, the pill. Before that turbulent time we call the 'sixties'.

In my opinion this marriage movement with its alarmist tales and myths about divorce needs to be resisted and challenged on a range of fronts. I'll start with what family historian Stephanie Coontz (2002) calls its 'nostalgia as ideology' - its idealisation of those 'good old days' often with reference to the post-war period of the 50's.

I was born in 1950. As with many other 'normal' intact middle-class families we went to the local church each Sunday, ate our meals together, had no television and a rare treat would be a trip to the local cinema. We had no exposure to graphic violence or sex. I cannot remember my parents shouting or screaming at each other. My father was not an alcoholic or a womaniser. He was never physically violent to my mother. But nor was my father loving. After the third pregnancy my parents never shared the same bed, never had sex and never held hands, kissed or hugged. My father was one of the most self-centred, lonely men I have known. I often wondered what my mother's part in all of this was. Why was she not able to thaw him or did she in some way contribute to that coldness?

My parents stayed in that miserable, pitiful marriage for 50 years. They stayed together, sure, but if that qualifies as a 'stable marriage' then I would opt for instability any time. Their marriage was a psychological prison and there were other families in similar miserable states. I have heard far more harrowing stories than mine and yet mine was only just survivable. That I survived and can cope with life most of the time took a lot of luck and a lot of hard work. I will never stop asking my mother why she did not leave him. None of her answers quite satisfies me. None excuses the harm that was caused by staying together. She says there was no option to leave a marriage unless one could earn an independent income and cope with the social stigma and alienation that divorce attracted in those times. She still feels that she had no choice and I wish I could believe her. I can't imagine not having a choice.

I do not remember any of my classmates who were children of divorce. But neither do I remember any family where I felt comfortable or safe. There always seemed to be a strain and lack of communication. Why have people forgotten this or did they never realise how fractured and toxic many of those families were? Why do people romanticise about this era when spousal, child and sexual abuse were neither talked about nor addressed. Before 'no-fault divorce' laws were introduced in 1976 and the supporting parent benefit in 1973, people were simply stuck in extremely unhappy, or even destructive, relationships and children suffered because of this. These marriages did not become happier because parents 'stuck it out'; if anything the misery just settled in.

However this is not what seems to have happened with the group that Waite and her team studied. 645 adults culled from the 1987-88 US National Survey of Families and Households who had rated themselves as 'unhappily married' were followed up five years later. During that period 167 had either divorced or were separating and, of these, about one half now described themselves as 'happy'. In contrast, about two thirds of the 478 who stayed married now described themselves as 'happy'. The researchers conducted interviews with 55 to find reasons for this turnaround. For some, problems were overcome with the passage of time; others found ways to become happier in themselves in spite of continued marital problems and the rest actively worked on the marriage relationship (Waite et al. 2002).

But why did they not investigate reasons why some of those who stayed married remained unhappy? Or why some of the divorced became happy? Why judge or condemn those who did not stay? And what would they have done if they had found that divorced people were happier than those who had stayed unhappily married? Would the IAV have released such findings? Note that in The Case for Marriage, Waite and co-author Gallagher claim there is overwhelming evidence that marriage is good for you and therefore the current no-fault divorce laws should be changed; that unmarried couples who live together should not be given legal rights or social approval and that government and media should step in to promote a positive view of marriage. They do not approve of divorce, gay relationships or cohabitation without marriage (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Further, the IAV co-ordinates a coalition of pro-marriage groups called The Marriage Movement and has published A Statement of Principles in which similar sentiments are voiced (Institute for American Values, 2000).

This new study is deeply flawed. The most disturbing feature to me is that the couples that separated or divorced did so over that five-year period so all were at different stages; some may have only just separated at the time of the follow-up! It makes no sense to compare this diverse group with a group who had stayed married; the only thing the two groups seem to have in common is that in the initial survey they all had said they were unhappily married. As the report mentions there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, financial and employment situation, and the presence of children. Also both divorced and separated couples are combined. Separated people are obviously the least happy (because they are in transition) and if they are taken out of the data to leave only the divorcees, this group may have been happier than the people who remained married. Dr Bryan Rodgers of the Australian National University is reported as saying that a longer time span than just five years would show greater improvement for the divorcees (Arndt, 2002). In a recent e-mail to me on 30 September 2002, he also pointed out that, 'The impact of divorce could impact on depression and substance use for as long as two years and that many individuals in the group would have been separated for less time than that'. He also said the other major problem with the study is that the 'divorced group and the staying together but unhappy group are not comparable. For example the former reported significantly higher rates of domestic violence' (21% had reported violence compared to 9% of those who stayed married).

There is no way of knowing whether the group who separated might have been happier if they had stayed together or whether those spouses who remained unhappily married might have been happier if they had divorced. Also one of the difficulties with indicators of happiness is that they do not measure denial or resignation. Most of us have met or know people who say they are happy or their marriages are happy when it is blatantly obvious they are not. It is interesting that Waite mentions, 'Unhappy marriages are less common than unhappy spouses; three out of four unhappily married adults are married to someone who is happy with the marriage'. What are we to make of this? Were those happy in denial? Were they blind to the stress or pain they may have been causing their partners? Or were those that were unhappy just going 'through a bad patch'?

Stephanie Coontz (2002) writes, 'Despite the benefits associated with marriage for most couples, unhappily married individuals are more distressed than people who are not married. Women in bad marriages lose their self-confidence, become depressed, develop lower immune functions, and are more likely to abuse alcohol than women who get out of such marriages'.

Hetherington (2002) says substantial research confirms that the vast majority of people move on successfully after divorce. After following 1,400 divorced families for up to 30 years (the most comprehensive study ever undertaken) she found that, 'Six years after divorce, 80 percent of both men and women have moved on to build reasonably or exceptionally fulfilling lives'. She claims studies repeatedly have found that women 'benefit from being in a well-functioning marriage, but in troubled marriages they are likely to experience depression, immune-system breakdowns, and other health-related problems'. Some in particular 'emerge from divorce enhanced and exhibiting competencies they would never have developed in an unhappy or constraining marriage' especially if they left a marriage in which 'a contemptuous or belligerent husband undermined their self-esteem and child rearing practices'. She also suggests that adults and children who are 'mature, stable, self-regulated, and adaptable' will cope better with divorce whereas those who are 'neurotic, antisocial, and impulsive' are likely to be worse off - the 'psychologically poor get poorer after a divorce while the rich often get richer'. Hetherington stresses the diversity in responses towards both marriage and divorce and if we look only at averages the truth is obscured.

Apart from Waite, another American researcher has been providing fuel for the marriage movement - Californian psychologist and researcher Judith Wallerstein. Whereas Waite focuses on adults, Wallerstein has looked at children as well. She claims that children of divorce (compared with children of 'intact' families) have: less competence in social relationships; lower grades at school; greater substance-abuse problems; and a higher risk of mental health problems and depression (Wallerstein et al., 2000). Her solution is for parents to stay together regardless of problems as even difficult marriages nurture children. Her one exception is in cases of physical violence.

But there was very little physical violence in our family, no more than we experienced at school with the leather strap or ruler, and yet we lived in fear of my father. Because his rage was unpredictable and irrational, we all knew that being good was not enough. And so to those who say the only valid reasons for divorce are physical violence, what about cold, relentless psychological warfare? What about lack of love and affection? What about ongoing tension and unresolved conflict?

The group that Wallerstein studied comprised of only 60 families who had divorced in 1971 and had responded to an offer of counselling. One half of the adults had chronic depression, severe neurotic difficulties, or long-standing problems with anger management or sexual impulses and one quarter reported violence in their marriages. How are we to know then that the problems experienced by these divorcees would have been avoided had they stayed together? They may have had similar or even worse problems. Similar criticism can be levelled against the Waite study. Hetherington (2002) points out, 'many of the adjustment problems in parents and children - and much of the inept parenting and destructive family relations, which policy makers have attributed to divorce - actually are present before divorce. Being in a dysfunctional family has taken its toll before the break-up occurs'.

The findings of Waite and Wallerstein are strongly contradicted by those who find life after divorce easier and less stressful. They are also contradicted by those of us scarred and damaged by families that stayed together. But the most disturbing feature is that on the basis of small, non-representative groups these researchers make sweeping generalisations about divorce. Hetherington and Kelly (2002, p. 280) says, 'The current focus in the media and some of the clinical literature on the hazards of divorce is a disservice to the majority of individuals who, often with heroic effort, are leading constructive lives … divorce is a reasonable solution to an unhappy acrimonious destructive marital relationship. It can be a gateway to pathways associated with joy, satisfaction, and attainments'.

In Australia we find the influence of the American marriage movement. John Anderson, National Party leader, has recently talked about eroding family stability, blaming divorce for our high crime and suicide rates. Journalist Paddy McGuinness (2000, p. 4) has written that many of the social policies of the past 30 years in regards to family, children and divorce, 'have had profoundly harmful consequences'. In a recent speech Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott (2002) mentioned 'the near tripling of the divorce rate during the past 30 years, such that nearly 50 per cent of marriages are statistically doomed' and 'the ramifications of family breakdown for delinquency, substance abuse, unemployment, poor mental health, educational setbacks and the low birth-rate'. (Note that divorce rates have remained relatively stable for the past 20 years but what these people do is compare current rates to pre-1970 rates, which is misleading if not dishonest). Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell (2002, p. 20), has said, 'The old slogan that divorce is better for both parents and children than staying in an unhappy marriage no longer has any credibility. The evidence now makes it clear that separation is only a benefit in cases of actual physical violence'. What evidence? Wallerstein's or Waite's? He also went on to say that divorce and births to single mothers are 'becoming major predictors for a range of personal pathologies, and for criminality' (p. 21). Apart from being false, this is extremely prejudicial. If Pell had said that sort of thing about any group on the basis of race, gender or religion, he would be accused of discrimination. And with all this negative press, is it any wonder that adults who divorce and their children are building up their own myths around themselves in our culture of blame? What message can they be receiving from people like Pell, Anderson and Abbott other than that they are doomed to fail in life?

Hetherington (2002) argues that the negative impact of divorce, which has dominated public debate over recent years, has been exaggerated and we have become so caught up in believing the long-term effects of divorce are inevitably harmful that it is almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. She warns: 'Any policies that constrain or encourage people to remain in destructive marriages - or that push uncommitted couples to marry - are likely to do more than good. The same is true of marriage incentives and rewards designed to create traditional families with the husband as the economic provider and the wife as homemaker. If our social policies do not recognize the diversity and varied needs of American families, we easily could end up undermining them'. The likes of Abbott and Anderson should take heed of her warnings. Those harkening back to some utopian 'good old days' of the 1950s forget the lack of communication and the emotional repression. The happy nuclear family back then often had a dark side of violence, inequality and oppression.

The home I created for my children in the 1980s and 1990s, and the families their friends grew up in were markedly different from those of my childhood. Our families certainly were not always happy (that is unrealistic) but there was much more communication and honesty - it was safe for my children to express their thoughts and feelings. While I couldn't wait to leave home at the age of 16, it was such a wrenching for both my children and myself when the time came. That certainly wasn't for a lack of independence. I had managed to create what I had missed out on: a real home, a safe haven. And it became much more so after my divorce. My children have never once asked me why I left their father. They have no need to as our lives became better in many ways. And their father, for so long an absent dad during the marriage, was much more present when they spent time with him.

However it wasn't all plain sailing. We had less money. We were not helped by the adversarial stances the lawyers chose in the divorce process. In hindsight, I could have made better decisions and choices and thereby had a smoother divorce. Regardless, I continued to be the full-time caregiver. My children got high grades at school, never needed therapy, both go to university and do not use drugs. They are far more balanced and emotionally healthy than I was at their age. And they are not exceptions. Many of their friends, though children of divorce, are high achievers and interesting and creative people.

Divorce is here to stay. Families can already be broken with or without divorce. This brokenness - the various forms of violence that grow within families and the lack of safety and love - is where the damage to children is done. Pamela Kinnear (2002) suggests that rather than insisting parents stay together for the sake of the children, 'it would be more useful to encourage parents to attempt to resolve conflict in constructive ways for the sake of the children, preferably within the marriage but, if that is not possible, outside of it'.

Divorce need not be damaging. But this war on divorce is. Its crusaders are stigmatising if not hurting groups of people rather than helping children and families. We need to be wary of research that is blatantly pro-marriage and dismisses or ignores healthy relationships within a variety of living arrangements. We also need to ignore the wailing of politicians and journalists who, fuelled by such research, want us to return to a romanticised version of nuclear family life in the fifties that simply never existed. Divorce could have been the best thing that could have happened to some of the women and their children trapped behind those white picket fences.

References:

Abbott, T. (2002, August 5). A family should be for life. The Australian, p. 13.

Arndt, B. (2002, August 31-September 1). Bride and gloom. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 20.

Coontz, S. (2002, April 8). Nostalgia as ideology. [On-line]. The American Prospect, 13 (no.7). Available: Internet: http://www.prospect.org

Hetherington, E M. (2002, April 8). Marriage and divorce American style. [On-line]. The American Prospect, 13 (7). Available: Internet: http://www.prospect.org

Hetherington, E. M. and Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton.

Institute for American Values (2000). The marriage movement: A statement of principles. New York: Institute for American Values.

Kinnear, P. (2002, June). New families for changing times. Summary. Australian Institute Discussion Paper No 47. [On-line]. Available: Internet: http://tai.org.au

McGuinness, P. (2000). Where is Quadrant going? Quadrant, XLIV (3), pp. 2-4.

Pell, G. (2002). The failure of the family. Quadrant, XLV1 (3), pp. 16-22.

Pinsof, W. (2002).The death of till death us do part. Family Process Journal, 4 (9), pp. 135-157.

Waite, L. and Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier and better off financially. New York: Doubleday.

Waite, L. and Browning, D.and Doherty, W. and Gallagher, M. and Luo,Y. and Stanley, S. (2002). IAV Does divorce make people happy? Executive summary. [On-line]. Available: Internet: http://www.americanvalues.org

Wallerstein, J. and Lewis, J. and Blakesee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25- year landmark study. New York: Hyperion.

****

No Pets in Paradise

Published in PetsnPeople Magazine Vol 5, Issue 24, pp. 44-46, 2002

My partner, Peter, and I live at Kookaburra Park Eco-village near Gin Gin, a small town inland from Bundaberg. Living in the semi-tropics the atmosphere is often laid-back and balmy. The region is crisscrossed with cane-fields and banana, pineapple, citrus, avocado and mango plantations. Sometimes I feel that we are living in the middle of a big fruit bowl - in more ways than one.

.As with most other alternative lifestyle schemes like ours, we have a by-law banning the keeping of dogs and cats as pets. For some residents this ruling is a 'sacred cow' that cannot be questioned, let alone broken, under any circumstances. The same rule applied at Crystal Waters Permaculture village near the Sunshine Coast hinterland town of Maleny, where I spent a few years in the 1990's.

This by-law, put in place at the beginning of the Kookaburra Park development, was in fact borrowed from Crystal Waters. There they even post a warning to visitors: "It is important that you don't bring dogs and cats into Crystal Waters. This is a wildlife sanctuary. Our… quail and other birds are safe and happy here, and we want to keep it that way. Even if your dog or cat has never chased a thing in all its life, the smell will still disturb the wildlife." Not that they do much about the odd tradesperson who drives in from time to time with a dog on the back of a ute. Nor can we for that matter. We can not very well ask them to leave them tied up outside the gate.

The problem with any total ban is that this provides an almost irresistible challenge to any rebellious 'teenager' aged between 14 and 84. This is what happened at Kookaburra Park. Some time one family actually dared to break our dog and cat ban by-law. They openly flouted it by keeping a small dog: a Fox Terrier-Jack Russell cross. At first they quite brazenly took it for morning walks around the eco-village.

As you can imagine, within days of its first sighting objections began to roll in to the body corporate demanding the dog's immediate removal. When the owners ignored letters requesting its removal, a few residents threatened court action to enforce the by-law. Some months later when that action was finally initiated, we were informed that the dog had been purchased for medical reasons, namely 'pet therapy'. Official medical documentation was produced to support the owners' claim. We knew that the dog's female owner had been sick for some years.

However this new 'slant' on the continuing drama did nothing to appease those residents who wanted no compromise on the dogs or cat issue under any circumstances. Some of these residents had been forced to give their beloved dogs and cats away in order to secure a place at Kookaburra Park. Others disliked dogs and cats altogether and blamed them for damage done to the environment, especially destruction to native birds. A few were concerned that a compromise in this instance opens the door to other claims for dog and cat ownership. These residents envisaged all sorts of problems, including barking, pooping, chasing children and harassing livestock.

A whole range of intense emotions was unleashed. In my view, these emotions stemmed largely from unresolved issues, such as grief from having given away much-loved pets in order to settle in the community. Other unresolved issues included fear from having been harassed by dogs in the past, jealousy, and anger that nothing had been done to get rid of the animal. It was mayhem. We seemed to talk about nothing else for a very long time. In hindsight, it would have been an ideal time to bring in an experienced mediator who could have encouraged people to start listening to each other. But we did not. Our community remained divided. The issue remained unresolved.

During this time, Peter and I were representatives on Kookaburra Park's body corporate committee. We had all sorts of major administration problems to deal with. There were various complaints to deal with, including the use of common land. (Please dear reader, do not get the wrong idea. These were exceptional times as it is mostly very peaceful in our community.) With all the serious problems before us, we simply did not have the time or energy to deal well with a pet problem. We wanted an easy way out. Interestingly enough, during this whole time the dispute raged neither my partner nor I ever once caught a glimpse of the dog. Evidently, most of the time it was kept indoors. We never heard any reports that it roamed further than the owners' lot. Nor did we receive any complaints from neighbours about the animal barking.

When the order to have the dog removed was successful, the conflict escalated. The order was ignored. Instead of complying, the pet owners proceeded to get considerable media coverage over what they considered a miscarriage of justice. They also mounted an unsuccessful campaign to have the by-law modified, permitting the keeping of a dog or a cat under special circumstances. Our community remained divided. A few residents who had at first supported the total ban policy, were now willing to consider exceptions on their individual merits. Others, however, threatened to sell up and leave if the by-law was altered. The rest of watched the unfolding drama with disbelief. We were subjected to unwanted media scrutiny. Bizarre letters appeared on the community notice board and in our mailboxes. Sections of the local community of Gin Gin, including several primary schools, a medical centre, the police, the media and even the church, were dragged into our dispute.

The situation was finally resolved when the female owner moved out with the dog to stay in nearby Gin Gin, while her husband and two children stayed at the eco-village.

Some months after this, Peter and I were sitting on our verandah relaxing, and looking out at the stunning views across dams, gentle hills and the native trees that have been planted in abundance. As we were sitting there a flock of guinea fowls belonging to one of our neighbours came running through our garden moving here and there, screeching and pecking. Peter pointed out that the fowls were probably searching for clutches of lizard eggs and hunting for insects. We realised that a whole range of wildlife was probably disappearing before our eyes due to the activities of the guinea fowl.

We wondered why those residents who had been so irate about one little dog's presence in our community - especially those concerned with protecting the native wildlife - said and did nothing about other introduced animals on the estate. No questions were being asked at all as to what impact other domestic animals were having on the land, wildlife and people here. Were ducks, guinea fowl, lambs, hens, geese, roosters, and guinea pigs being confined on individual lots? No! Have residents received permission from the body corporate to keep these animals? Most have not!

Take roosters for example, especially those raucous strains that disturb and wake people up. What about the one that decides to start shrieking at 2 a.m. and then continues throughout the early morning into the day? Why do we put up with this? Why aren't we raising our voices in protest about the feral animals - foxes, cats, rabbits, cane toads, rats and mice - that are roaming and proliferating in ever increasing numbers? Why aren't we concerned about the looming population explosion of kangaroos and wallabies?

We realised that here in this eco-village our hens and ducks eat and chase wildlife. Guinea fowl forage for native baby snakes and eggs, while snakes devour chickens, eggs and pet guinea pigs? We realised that the dance of life and death goes on with most of us remaining oblivious to it. When it comes to animals and their varying needs for survival, this dance crosses all the categories and labels that humans construct - native, wildlife, endangered, introduced, popular, damaging, therapeutic, pet, nuisance. And yet, when there is any attempt to discuss pet dogs and cats, all these considerations are pushed aside. For some people, the mere mention of dogs and cats conjures up images of vicious dogs running amok and feline mouths stuffed full with birds.

It would be good to know just how much damage well-managed cats and dogs really cause. Scientists have established that it is the foxes and the voracious herbivores such as rabbits and goats that cause big environmental problems. What people do not seem to realise is that native animals are being attracted to eco-villages not because of the absence of dogs and cats, but because of the creation of suitable niches and habitats through reforestation and planting. Jarlanbah Permaculture Hamlet near Nimbin in New South Wales is one of the few such communities in Australia that actually allows cats and dogs as pets. The designer of that project, Robyn Francis, wrote to us recently explaining that: "responsible keeping of dogs and cats at Jarlanbah has not impacted on wildlife - the wallabies, bandicoots etc are brazen and unfearful and bird life is incredibly abundant".

So, we sat there on our veranda that sunny morning discussing these things and realising the extent of the hypocrisy that had surfaced over the issue of dog ownership in our community. We eventually arrived at a fundamental question that we believe needs to be asked: How do we manage all our animals -domestic, feral or wild - sensibly. Surely not by maintaining a blanket ban on just two species - cats and dogs - and turning a blind eye on the rest.

****

Dogs, Cats and Eco-villages

Published in the magazine Permaculture South Australia, Adelaide: Permaculture Association of South Australia, Winter, 2002

Even though in recent years the gap between alternative communities and mainstream society has narrowed considerably, there is one glaring difference that sets them apart. Almost all communities have a blanket ban on the keeping of dogs and cats as pets.

For example, Bob Rich of Moora Moora (Victoria) says: 'Carnivorous animals like cats and dogs are not allowed under any circumstances. This policy goes back to 1974 (the year of formation). The original reasons were environmental, and are still valid: damage done (particularly by cats) to native wildlife'.

Crystal Waters Permaculture Village (Queensland) has a by-law stating: 'The keeping of dogs and cats is prohibited … a resident must ensure that the provisions of this by-law are strictly adhered to by a resident and any invitee'. Kookaburra Park Eco-village (Gin Gin, Queensland) adopted this same by-law.

Goolawah (NSW) advertises: 'We have decided that there will be no cats or dogs on the property for environmental reasons'. A spokesperson from Fryers Forrest (Victoria) stated their reasons: 'cats for killing wildlife and very difficult to control their movements. Dogs for keeping wildlife away from the village and because 'dogs are one of the main sources of arguments between neighbours'.

In of this widespread ban, there is one exception - Jarlanbah Permaculture Hamlet (Nimbin) designed by Robyn Francis. While others may regard her views as radical if not heretical, I see them as plain common sense. She says: 'A ban on dogs and cats is a knee-jerk reaction - animals only become a problem if they're not integrated and managed in an appropriate way by their owners. We decided not to keep prescriptive laws regarding any particular species - guineapig, rabbit, chicken, duck, cat, dog, sheep, goat, cow, horse, llama, ostrich, camel or pet rodent'.

But what about the damage to wildlife? According to the Australian Conservation Foundation and the CSIRO the biggest threat to biodiversity is not introduced animals but habitat degradation from land clearing. About 500,000 hectares of native vegetation are cleared each year destroying habitats and reducing wildlife. The impact of pest species, particularly the fox, increases as they are more adaptable on cleared land. It should be noted also that it is 'feral' animals that cause most damage. But feral cats and dogs arise directly from irresponsible ownership. Well-managed animals are neutered, constrained and kept indoors at night.

Surprisingly, reports from recent Urban Animal Management Conferences show that hunting cats prefer rabbit, mice or feral pigeons rather than native animals, and the most common bird caught is the introduced turtledove. And they have found that even in uncleared or revegetated land the predatory habits of cats or dogs is not nearly as detrimental as foxes, rabbits or cane-toads.

These findings are blatantly dismissed by permaculture teachers such as Max Lindegger, co-founder of Crystal Waters. He claims they have 'created a sanctuary for over 160 species of birds, 26 species of frogs, kangaroos, wallabies, bandicoots, echidnas, platypus'. He also stated at a Permaculture Conference: 'Most of us can see that having cats and dogs would mean losing our wildlife. It is a matter of choice. I think it is a matter of rights, as well, the right of native animals to continue to exist in their home territories.'

What Lindegger doesn't realise is that native animals are attracted to eco-villages not because of the absence of dogs and cats but because of the creation of suitable niches and habitats through reforestation and planting. Robyn Francis reports that the 'responsible keeping of dogs and cats at Jarlanbah has not impacted on wildlife - the wallabies, bandicoots etc are brazen and unfearful and bird life is incredibly abundant'.

Some people discount the benefit of pets at all especially in a community. Dennis Knable of Kookaburra Park believes: 'Individuals may experience emotional or physical problems. One would hope that they look to their immediate family or to the community for assistance. The notion of being dependent on a dog or cat, as opposed to another human, is quite contrary to the notion of assisting anyone to be physically or emotionally sound.'

But it has been clearly established that dogs and cats have benefits for their keepers. (Australians have the highest rate of pet ownership in the world with 83 per cent of Australians having had a pet at some time.) And from my experiences people are not always available and are often busy. There are residents who are still lonely even in an eco-village. Others may value aspects of this lifestyle - the safety etc. - but not want much social interaction. Living in a community can be intense, as if in a hothouse of human dramas. People chatter, spread rumours, judge and meddle. Dogs and cats don't! Paul Morrow of Jarlanbah says, 'For a single person, an animal becomes a very important part of their life'. As George Mingin of Kookaburra Park remarks, 'It does not make sense to me that cats and dogs cannot be kept when out of all animals they provide people with the greatest amount of love and affection.'

Another concern is possible mismanagement of pets. 'Knowing that there would no dogs or cats in the Park was a significant factor in our decision to move to Kookaburra Park. To not have dogs barking at you, knocking over your compost heap or cats using the children's sandpit as a toilet.'

It is interesting that at Jarlanbah such complaints seldom arise; instead complaints are over dogs straying and chasing animals such as hens. In response to these incidents and some confusion over the animal by-laws, Robyn explained: 'From a permaculture perspective all animals are seen as potentially beneficial or detrimental to the system or the environment. It really comes down to appropriate design, management and exercising our rights in a responsible way. If animal lovers cared properly for their animals and made sure they didn't impact on neighbours or community land by providing adequate restraints against escape, then there shouldn't be major problems.'

Recently Robyn Frances commented: 'Cat & dogs lovers really appreciate being able to live on such a community. Not everyone likes cats and dogs but most are prepared to live with responsible ownership of domestic animals. There are a couple of people who occasionally want to make an issue of things and accept the situation with reservation and at times antagonism.'

One difficulty with a ban is that to some people it is an irresistible challenge to break. At Moora Moora the policy was defied three times causing a lot of tension. A resident at Crystal Waters kept an old cat for a few days while a friend was on holiday until the community's Ranger ordered it be removed immediately or he would shoot it! A few residents were incensed that this by-law had been flaunted even though they ignored the breaking of other by-laws.

Here at Kookaburra Park a family kept a small dog for almost a year. After various complaints an application was lodged to enforce that particular by-law. The situation escalated and the aggrieved party then proceeded to get considerable media coverage over their 'perceived miscarriage of justice'.

Attempts were made to modify the by-law to allow the keeping of a pet under special circumstances (pet therapy/medical reasons). Even though a few who had been totally in favour of the ban were now willing to consider exceptions on their individual merits, several threatened to sell up and leave. 'One of the main reasons we bought land was because there were no dogs or cats allowed. This was important to us because we had suffered severely at the hands of irresponsible dog owners. The prospect of dog and cat ownership is causing us stress and anguish, particularly as we are planning to build. We are uncertain whether to build.'

Many of us watched the unfolding drama with disbelief as a television crew drove in on one occasion; bizarre letters appeared on the notice board and in our letterboxes. Sections of the local community of Gin Gin - several of the primary schools, a doctor, the police, newspaper and even church - were dragged into the foray. The situation was resolved by the wife moving to Gin Gin with the dog Punta whilst the husband and two children stayed behind!

The banning of dogs and cats from communities has become almost a 'sacred cow' that cannot be challenged or questioned. During the time I lived at Crystal Waters the ruling irked me but I was neither courageous nor informed enough to question it. When a friend was dying of cancer some of us talked about a, kitten for her but dismissed the idea because of the furore that it would have caused. Thankfully in some of the newer eco-villages the issue is slowly being brought out into the open even if through emotional and heated discussions.

In spite of their high ideals and promises of freedom and happiness, eco-villages can be extraordinarily rigid places with unnecessary rules, dogmatic beliefs and often an absence of common sense. Nowhere is this more apparent than the way they have dealt with our most popular and favourite and pets: cats and dogs.

If eco-villages really want to throw away mainstream dogmas and be seriously practical about biodiversity, then surely what is needed is a management plan for the whole ecosystem and ALL animals, native and introduced, pets and pests. A balance is needed between the community freedom of having minimal pet nuisance and the personal freedom of having pet companionship. Jarlanbah has had the courage to go in this direction and it is my hope that future, and maybe even existing, eco-villages can learn from them.

* In the early nineties the word eco-village suddenly appeared to describe alternative communities. This term was simply in response to trends in wider society where eco has become a buzzword. Who qualifies or not is entirely subjective, as no quantifiable criteria have been established!

Alarmist tales divorced from reality

Mary Garden challenges the damaging myths about ending a marriage

(Published 9 August 2002, Australian Financial Review - Review, pp. 6-7)

Tony Abbott, our Workplace Relations Minister, urges us to look at statistics to realise that divorce does immense damage to children and society. In an address to the Centre for Independent Studies last weekend, he said there was no such thing as a happy divorce. Well, Abbott needs to look a bit more carefully at statistics and also recognise the immense damage caused by toxic marriages.

In 1962, John F Kennedy said that "the greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth persistent, pervasive and unrealistic". Many myths about divorce have arisen in recent years and are being systematically exploited by people like Abbott. They continue to push the myth that divorce is always "bad", and especially harmful to children. They also feed us the line that divorce is rapidly increasing, dragging in its wake more and more damaged children. Divorce has become the modern scapegoat for many of society's perceived ills. Is it any wonder that there has arisen a romantic nostalgia for earlier times? Before so many married women went out to work, before no-fault divorce, pensions for sole parents, the pill. Before the turbulent decade of the 1960s.

I was born in 1950. As with many other "normal" intact middle-class families we went to the local church each Sunday, ate all our meals together, had no television and a rare treat would be a trip to the local cinema. We had no exposure to graphic violence or sex. I cannot remember my parents shouting or screaming at each other. My father was not an alcoholic or a womaniser. He was never physically violent to my mother.

But nor was my father loving. After the third pregnancy my parents never shared the same bed, never had sex and never held hands, kissed or hugged. My father was one of the most self-centred, lonely men I have known. I often wondered what my mother's part in all of this was. Why was she not able to thaw him or did she in some way contribute to that coldness? My parents stayed in that miserable, pitiful marriage for 50 years. They stayed together, sure, but if that qualifies as a "stable marriage" (yet another myth of recent years) then I would opt for instability any time. Their marriage was a psychological prison and there were other families in similarly miserable states. I heard far more harrowing stories than mine and yet mine was only just survivable. That I survived and could cope with life most of the time took a lot of luck and a lot of hard work. I will never stop asking my mother why she didn't leave him. None of her answers quite satisfies me. None excuses the harm that was caused by staying together. She says there was no option to leave a marriage unless one could earn an independent income and cope with the social stigma and alienation that divorce attracted in those times. She still feels that she had no choice and I wish I could believe her. I can't imagine not having a choice.

Why have people forgotten this or did they never realise how fractured and toxic many of those families were? They were intact in name only. Before "no-fault divorce" laws were introduced in 1976 and the supporting parent benefit in 1973, people were simply stuck in extremely unhappy, or even destructive, relationships.

So what is feeding the present myths about divorce? Californian psychologist and researcher Judith Wallerstein is considered by some to be the world expert in the field of divorce. She has spent 25 years studying the long-term effects of divorce on 60 couples (who divorced in 1971) and their children. Her case studies and conclusions were published in 1989 in a book called Second Chances. A more recent book The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A Twenty-Five Year Landmark Study was based on follow-up interviews with some of the children as adults.

Wallerstein claims that children of divorce (compared with children of "intact" families) have: less competence in social relationships; lower grades at school; greater substance-abuse problems; and a higher risk of mental health problems and depression. Most parents, she says, experience intense conflict and pain when they divorce but recover within a few years. However, she claims that for children divorce is traumatic and has long-lasting effects. Wallerstein's solution is for parents to stay together regardless of problems as she claims that even difficult marriages still nurture children. She makes one exception and that is in the case of physical violence.

Wallerstein's sample group was made up of 60 predominantly white, middle-class and well-educated families. They had responded to an offer of long-term counselling and so must have felt they needed help. Indeed Wallerstein admits that only one third of the families she worked with had "adequate psychological functioning" before the divorce. Half the parents had chronic depression, severe neurotic difficulties, or "long-standing problems in controlling their rage or sexual impulses". Nearly one quarter reported violence in their marriages. How are we to know that the many problems experienced by their children would have been avoided had the couples stayed together? They may have had similar or even worse problems.

Wallerstein's findings are strongly contradicted by all those children and adults who find life after divorce easier and less stressful. And they are also contradicted by those of us scarred and damaged by families that stayed together. But the most disturbing feature is that Wallerstein, using anecdotal data and on the basis of a small, select, non-representative, non-random sample group, makes sweeping generalisations about all children of divorce. And yet her findings are quoted frequently and held up as "indisputable facts". Here in Australia we find journalists, politicians and church leaders coming to similar, alarmist conclusions. At a recent National Party conference, party leader John Anderson spoke about eroding family stability, blaming divorce for our high crime and suicide rates. Paddy McGuinness has written that many of the social policies of the past 30 years in regards to family, children and divorce, "have had profoundly harmful consequences" and that divorce should be discouraged "because of its often harmful effect on children". Abbott's speech mentioned "the near tripling of the divorce rate during the past 30 years, such that nearly 50 per cent of marriages are statistically doomed" and "the ramifications of family breakdown for delinquency, substance abuse, unemployment, poor mental health, educational setbacks and the low birth-rate".

Abbott's reference to divorce rates over the past 30 years is convenient but very misleading. In 1971 the divorce rate was only 4.2 per 1,000 married couples. This rate rose to an all-time high (18.8) in 1976, due to the "no-fault" provisions of the new Family Law Act 1975. But after that it dropped to 12 and since then has remained fairly constant (Australian Bureau of Statistics). If we compare present rates with the 1976 rate (instead of the 1971 rate as Abbott has done) we could equally argue that divorce rates have actually dropped by 30 per cent rather than tripled. Abbott has also failed to mention that almost half of all divorces do not involve dependent children and that the divorces involving children has not been rising but dropping. Also the median period between marriage and divorce was 12 years in the year 2000, up from 10 years in 1980. We are also living longer but that is never brought into the equation.

It was not only the "no-fault" legislation that ushered in a new era of higher divorce levels but also the fact that at last more married women began to enter the workforce and became economically independent. This means they no longer needed to stay, like my mother, in unhealthy marriages. McGuiness has referred to "the awful experiences of lightly or unnecessarily broken marriages". There are certainly some people who appear to take marriage lightly and leave it easily. They may believe that they have found "a new love of their lives", though in most cases what they have uncovered is deranging lust, a temporary insanity. But most people don't leave marriages easily; they struggle with their feelings for years and divorce is turned to as a last resort. Then, if anything, they say "if only we'd ended our marriage earlier". Ending any marriage even a violent one is difficult and some people will tolerate the most destructive situation in preference to facing the "unknown".

We also have some of our religious leaders perpetuating divorce myths. The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, said recently: "The old slogan that divorce is better for both parents and children than staying in an unhappy marriage no longer has any credibility. The evidence now makes it clear that separation is only a benefit in cases of actual physical violence". This is utter nonsense. What evidence? Wouldn't children prefer to see their parents happy than unhappy, regardless of whether they stayed together or not? Pell goes on to talk about the same consequences of divorce that Wallerstein writes about. He also claims that divorce and births to single mothers are "becoming major predictors for a range of personal pathologies, and for criminality". Apart from being false, this is extremely prejudicial. If Pell had said that sort of thing about any group on the basis of race, gender or religion, he would be rightfully accused of discrimination. And with all this negative press, is it any wonder that children of divorce are building up their own myths around themselves in our culture of blame? What message can the children of divorce be receiving from people like Pell, McGuinness, Anderson and Abbott other than that they are doomed to fail in life?

Another eminent researcher in this field (though we don't hear of her as often as her findings are less sensational) is Mavis Hetherington of the University of Virginia. She studied more than 1,400 families and 2,500 children of divorced parents, some for three decades. Her findings are documented in a recent book For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. In contrast to Wallerstein's depressing conclusions, she reports that the large majority of children from divorced families grow up well adjusted both socially and psychologically, especially when there is "a competent, caring parent". Hetherington states that the negative impact of divorce on children has been exaggerated. She concludes: "Divorce is a legitimate decision. If children are in marriages with parents who are contemptuous of each other, not even with overt conflict, but just sneering and subtle putdowns that erode the partner's self-esteem, that is very bad for kids."

The home I created for my children in the 1980s and 1990s and the families their friends grew up in were markedly different from those of my childhood. Our families certainly were not always happy (that is unrealistic) but certainly more alive, more relaxed. There was much more communication and honesty and it was safer for my children to express their thoughts and feelings. While I couldn't wait to leave home at the age of 16, it was such a wrenching for both my children and myself when the time came. That certainly wasn't for a lack of independence. I had managed to create what I had missed out on: a real home, a safe haven. And it became much more so after my divorce.

My children have never once asked me why I left their father. They have no need to as our lives became better in many ways. And their father, for so long an absent dad during the marriage, was much more present when they spent time with him. However it wasn't all plain sailing. We had less money. We were not helped by the adversarial stances the lawyers chose in the divorce process. In hindsight, I could have made better decisions and choices and thereby had a smoother divorce. Regardless, I continued to be the full-time caregiver. My children got high grades at school, never needed therapy, both go to university and do not use drugs. They are far more balanced and emotionally healthy than I was at their age. And they are not exceptions. Most of their friends, though children of divorce, are high achievers and interesting and creative people. In fact a few of their friends from "intact" families experienced more problems from drugs, sexual promiscuity, emotional instability.

Those harkening back to some utopian "good old days" of the 1950s forget the lack of communication and the emotional repression. Recent research by Michael Dunne, of the Queensland University of Technology, indicates that modern families are safer for children as there is less abuse and incest occurring nowadays. Also it is about time that we acknowledge that these days there is no such thing as a normal family, no matter how much some people want to cling to the myths of the "traditional nuclear family". We now have a variety of other families: single parent, gay and lesbian and extended families as well as step- families and foster families. Any of these structures can bring up healthy children; any of them can do damage. What children need is someone to take care of them, someone who loves them and with whom they feel safe. It does not matter whether these persons are male, female, straight, gay, divorced, married, remarried or never married. And if the genetic parents are unable to give such care, then it is far, far better for someone else to. Isn't this just plain common sense?

There are many factors that need to be considered when we look at how children respond to divorce: degree of conflict between parents; changes in relationship with the major caregiver (usually the mother); change of schools and home; age and temperament of each child; resiliency within the family; how the divorce itself is played out; genetic influences; relationships with peers; school factors; and so on. The conclusions of researchers such as Wallerstein, oversimplify a very complex issue.

Divorce is here to stay. Families can already be broken with or without divorce. This brokenness, the various forms of violence that grow within families and the lack of safety and love, is where the damage to children is done. That is where our attention must be focused. What we must do is find ways for couples to build healthier relationships and resolve conflicts. And for those who cannot, we need to find ways to minimise the impact of divorce on children.

The myths around divorce do more than stigmatise groups of people. They subtly influence us. If we are not careful, they can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Divorce, while not ideal, need not be damaging. But the myths around divorce are. The likes of Abbott and Pell may be unwittingly causing a lot of hurt and damage with their condemnations. They should listen carefully to Kennedy's words.

***

'A Sacred Cow: Banning Cats and Dogs from Eco-villages'

Grassroots Magazine, No 161 (Feb/March 2004), pp. 55-58.

The word eco-village appeared in the early nineties to describe various alternative communities. Crystal Waters Permaculture Village near Maleny, Queensland, was perhaps the first in Australia to adopt the label in 1994. Since then other communities have chosen to use it or have been described as such, though who qualifies or not is entirely subjective as no quantifiable criteria have been established. A number of newer developments have also used it in their actual title including Rosneath Farm Eco-village in W.A. and Kookaburra Park Eco-village near Gin Gin, Qld.

Despite their differences, almost all of these so-called 'eco-villages' have one thing in common: they have a blanket ban on the keeping of dogs and cats as pets. Not that all members are necessarily happy or agree with this ruling. Few of these communities have any selection criteria (anybody can go and live there) so they attract a diverse range of people. This includes the full range of avid lovers of dogs and cats through to rabid haters of these animals. There are also those who are indifferent but would not have a problem with permitting pets under special circumstances. Yet, in spite of this diversity there is no freedom of choice. Dogs and cats are not allowed.

From the outset (1974) Moora Moora Co-Operative Community in Healesville, Victoria has not allowed carnivorous animals like cats and dogs under any circumstances. The reasons were and are environmental, centring on the damage done to native wildlife particularly by cats. Crystal Waters introduced a similar strict ban in 1998, prohibiting the keeping of dogs and cats by residents and forbidding visitors from bringing them in. Others such as Goolawah, (mid-coast NSW), Kookaburra Park, Fryers Forrest (Victoria) all have similar rules.

In spite of this widespread ban there are two exceptions - Jarlanbah Permaculture Hamlet near Nimbin, NSW and Rosneath Farm. The fact that there are communities that allows such pets is not well known amongst alternative life-style people.

Robyn Francis, well-known permaculture teacher, was the designer of Jarlanbah, NSW's first rural community title established in 1994. Robyn explained: 'The issue of domestic animals has proved to be a painful and divisive issue for many M.O.'s (multiple occupancies) and communities especially regarding cats and dogs. After extensive discussion on the pros and cons of a 'no cats or dogs clause', the solicitor, developer and myself came to agree that such a rule is a knee-jerk reaction - animals only become a problem if they're not integrated and managed in an appropriate way by their owners.

' Rosneath Farm also decided against the ban. Warwick Rowell says they have a: "tight management approach; no more than two, one dog maximum, under control of owner, in house at night and the understanding that if it doesn't work the community will move towards a ban. A careful analysis reveals that cats are easier to manage than dogs.'

Then why have the majority of these eco-villages banned cats and dogs? Unfortunately some of Australia's more vocal and outspoken anti-cat and dog lobbyists have influenced and misled a lot of people. John Wamsley (formerly of Earth Sanctuaries) became a public figure a decade ago, conducting public crusades against cats with a cat pelt draped over him. He has come out with some extreme, if not offensive, statements such as 'it has been proven beyond all doubt that cats are the number 1 problem in regard to Australia's loss of wildlife' and 'the only good cat is a flat or dead cat.' Another vocal anti-cat campaigner, zoologist Dr David Paton, also gave figures (since called into question) purporting that cats kill 3.8 billion animals and birds annually.

Such lobbying has led to the 'demonising' of these animals especially the cat. I was appalled when a permaculture teacher told me in 1995 that the only use for cats was as 'mulch or on a barbecue'. Former ecovillage resident Brenda Ramsey recently wrote: 'Having been out of Crystal Waters for 1½ years now and an owner of 2 gorgeous cats I am absolutely floored by the comments from some of the C.W. people who've visited. They have such unfounded venom for cats. One man, an avid permaculturist, said, "I'll sneak over when you're out one day and hang'em one by one". Another said: "The cats and environment are mutually exclusive, you can't have the cats and the environment as well".

' To appease those who perhaps would like a pet, there are those who bring up the utopian idea of quolls and other Australian native animal species. Wildlife experts have rejected this idea because, while domestic pets have been selected over thousands of generations to make them suitable as companions, native animals have not. They can be aggressive at maturity and susceptible to stress.

While at first newcomers to eco-villages may be excited about the newness of being around more wildlife, the honeymoon phase soon passes when snakes slither into bedrooms and baths, kangaroos menace and sometimes even attack the unwary, possums scuttle over roofs entering them wherever possible, native rats harvest those grapes at the end of the verandah and bandicoots demolish the vegetable garden. It often becomes impossible to grow vegetables without adequate fencing to keep the wildlife out! Without cats and dogs, vermin also can also become a major problem, particularly where chemicals and poisons are also banned.

But what about damage done to wildlife by cats and dogs? According to the Australian Conservation Foundation and reports from the CSIRO the biggest threat to biodiversity is not introduced animals but habitat degradation from the clearing of land for farmland and buildings. It is because of this destruction of native habitats that wildlife is reduced. With less prey available, the impact of pest species, particularly the fox, is much greater because the pests are more adaptable and better able to survive on cleared land. Even in uncleared or revegetated land the predatory habits of cats or dogs are not nearly as detrimental as other foreign species such as foxes, rabbits, cane-toads and sparrows. Some studies have indicated that cars on our roads kill more birds than cats!

Regardless, dogs and cats will prey when they are allowed to roam freely or have gone feral. But the feral problem arises directly from irresponsible ownership. Well-managed cats and dogs are neutered, constrained from wandering by fencing and are kept indoors at night.

Even though the fundamental reason for this blanket ban on cats and dogs is an environmental one, there are other reasons. Bob Rich from Moora Moora argues that the use of resources by society on pet food seems obscene in a world where millions starve. However, pet food comes from sources most of which are deemed unfit for human consumption, for example old dairy cows and poultry, wild pigs and discarded offal from meat works. It is not viable economically and would also be an insult to send this sort of inferior meat when there are good quality foodstuffs available in the world, especially in the surplus stocks of Europe and the USA.

A more valid reason for not wanting dogs or cats in communities is the concern over possible mismanagement of pets. On a recent visit to Jarlanbah, while talking to some of the residents, I found it interesting that complaints about dogs barking or 'pooping' did not arise. Complaints have been over dogs 'on the loose' (straying) and some years ago chasing other animals such as hens. This is in spite of a by-law stipulating that if a resident keeps an animal (of any species) they should ensure it is properly provided for and confined or restricted to the lot.

As can be expected in a diverse community, what are minor incidents to some are major dramas to others. Whilst for a few Jarlanbah residents the issue of 'dogs and cats' is constantly simmering and sometimes boils over, to others it is simply a non-issue. One resident remarked that even if her cat does on the rare occasion catch a bird it is invaluable to keep mice and rats at bay. It is interesting, if not amusing, that apart from the few who are opposed to dogs and cats being in the community at all, there is even a little niggling tension between some cat and dog lovers. One bemoaned the fact that in his view cats do more damage but are more 'invisible' compared to dogs that are 'in your face'.

Several residents commented that compared with other problems cats and dogs were doing much more good than harm. The big problem for them is how to deal with those few members who have the need to control others and the community, to impose their views on others. These few make issues out of a lot of things, including cats and dogs.

It seemed odd to me that only one dog-owner has fenced his lot because most of the problems would be resolved if owners simply fenced part of their lots. Now that dogs and cats are such an integral, and for most an enriching, part of the way of life at Jarlanbah the real challenge is to find ways to implement the various guidelines that are decided upon from time to time. It is common for alternative communities to be reluctant to enforce by-laws through the Court System as somehow this would be seen as an admission of failure - one resident at Jarlanbah commented that 'this community simply does not have the heart to go down that track '. However even though most of us are fairly self-regulated and don't need rules to behave decently towards each other, there are always the few that seems to require codes of behaviour - regulations which need to be enforced.

If a community decides to follow in the footsteps of Jarlanbah and allow the keeping of dogs and cats as pets there obviously needs to be very clear guidelines for their management so that the rights of neighbours are respected. There also need to be ways to enforce those policies. It might also be necessary to have, for example, a system of conditional licences, perhaps a restriction to various breeds of dogs favouring those that are less aggressive, a requirement for dog obedience training, the use of enclosed outdoor spaces for a cat.

The real difficulty with any prohibition, especially if it seen as unreasonable, is that becomes an irresistible challenge to break as nearly all communities have discovered! Here at Kookaburra Park one resident flaunted our by-law and kept a small dog for almost a year - a situation that caused all sorts of dramas and tensions. As far as I was concerned the dog itself was not a problem; I never saw or heard it and the family took it outside the community daily to exercise it. Finally, the owner had enough and moved to nearby Gin Gin with the dog and left her husband and children behind. This situation could have been handled differently if we had a different by-law especially one that at least allows the keeping of pets under special circumstances.

What is really interesting is that when people leave eco-villages often one of the first things they do is get a dog or a cat. It has been clearly established that pets have an overall beneficial effect on the physical and psychological health of their keepers. To trivialise this relationship is to ignore a vast literature on the benefits of pet ownership. Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world with 83 per cent of Australians having had a pet at some time. In Jarlanbah it is telling that out of the 26 established households 11 keep cats and dogs.

When the idealism, not only about 'native wildlife' but also other aspects of community living, wears off, residents can be left with a sense of loss over past pets. Wildlife is no substitute for what they have had to give up. Chris from Kookaburra Park says that they had to give up their two darling West Highland Terriers, the oldest of which was 14 and had been with the family since their children were babies. Brenda, looking back, is surprised she opted to go to Crystal Waters in the first place if this meant giving her dog Gizmo away. The ban to her always felt like an imposition. 'I don't understand why the minimal damage (if any when managed properly) a cat or dog can do is a issue compared to what some people do to each.'

A total ban does more than deny people the pleasure and benefits of pet ownership. It also distracts residents from the need to look at other factors that impact on wildlife and prevents the development of a management plan for the whole ecosystem and all animals, native and introduced, pets and pests.

I believe that cats and dogs have become convenient scapegoats for wildlife depletion due to human activities and this view has seeped into eco-villages. I would have thought that if pet access leads to happier people then that would lead to a more contented and less stressed community? If communities really want to be serious about biodiversity and slant their ecology towards native wildlife, then instead of a blanket ban on dogs and cats they need to get serious about trapping foxes and rabbits and to reduce the cane-toad population. These are major threats to native wildlife and they are proliferating in many communities. Fewer exotic trees and a wider variety of local native trees (not the massive plantings of the pest weed of Torellianas, which litter eco-villages in Qld and NSW!) could also be planted to the great benefit of native animals.

With any controversial issue it is very difficult to soften a hardened mindset, because mindsets protect cherished beliefs and prejudices. One of the founders of permaculture, David Holmgren, wrote in the International Journal of Permaculture (No 51, 1994), 'In permaculture it is essential that we continually question our most self-evident beliefs if we are to avoid dogmatic beliefs and be successful in establishing sustainable system.' In response to Holmgren's remark, permaculture teacher Mal McKenna comments: "Nowhere is this challenge greater than in trying to balance the competing desires for sustainable systems and domestic pets."

I believe though that the real problem, the real challenge, is not dogs and cats but human beings. Dogs and cats can be managed easily. What can't be managed easily are human beings - their fears, their lack of responsibility and their need for 'sacred cows'. How to deal with these human factors is the biggest challenge to eco-villages and to those who seek a 'better way' of living. Mary Garden (resident of Kookaburra Park) has visited, played and worked at, and also lived in alternative communities on and off since the early 1970's.

Mary Garden (resident of Kookaburra Park) has visited, played and worked at, and also lived in alternative communities on and off since the early 1970's

***