Member - Robyn J (QLD) posted:

The spiders eyes at 40mile beach were really interesting. We had a storm in the afternoon and once all that cleared there were eyes around everywhere you cared to shine the torch on.

fisho64 posted:

Mind you , with all the wild animals why would you bring dogs there anyway.

cos some people travel with their dogs, especially oldies. I agree though that there are plenty of f..kwits with big stupid dogs that ruin it.
I lived in Coral Bay for a few years with my dog (now 15) and it was great but for the tossers who rolled in with their Rotties etc (rotties are not all bad either)

sad thing for kids is that with the smaller blocks for houses, and dog bans everywhere etc, kids are losing the last contact with probably the only interactive animal they will know.

Miss'n Nissan posted:

MOST OF YOU MISSED THE POINT. it wasn't the banning of the dogs, it was the fact that the shire of Port hedland could have put a sign 140klms before we actually got to the Keraudren turnoff to find out about it. I am mainly puting this on this site to let you with dogs (that are part of your family) know so you don't get caught like we did. Just be aware dogs are not allowed at these places.so Don't waste petrol going on a special trip there.

Miss'n Nissan posted:

Sorry fisho64, I was leaving the reply for Bote and others that missed my point. I fully agree with YOU. We are "nearly oldies" and love our little dog, where we go she goes, and if she can't we don't either.

Shaker posted:

Why are you in favour of limiting dogs?

I would almost guarantee people do more harm!

Footloose posted:

Steve, not everyone in that part of the world hates tourists except for their money.

I can remember Broome when it was pretty laid back. The locals were OK, and you didn't need to book into the van parks. I seem to remember only one resort, and people still stopped to say G'day to tourists.

That almighty dollar has a lot to answer for, eh ?

But I wonder what a Broomite might think of Sydney ? :-)

silkwood posted:

I visited Broome for a couple of weeks earlier this year and really enjoyed the place. BUT, I flew in, stayed in a hotel and was happy to pay for a number of expensive activities. It seems this is what the place is geared for now and if people are prepared to pay, you can't blame the locals for going down this path (damn, that means it's my fault!). I would have liked to have visited 15 years ago when, friends have told me, it was a great place for car-based tourists and a lot more laid back.

Can't help think though, that back then there were a few whingeing about how things were better in the good old days.

Cheers,

Mark

Mike Harding posted:

I am perplexed that you would, willingly, go on a lengthy trip with people who you were aware were taking a dog which, you were also aware, would limit your options and then have temerity to come on here and moan about the consequences of your decision!?

Mike Harding

PS. If you think dogs limit ones options you should try children.

Shaker posted:

QUOTE: "PS. If you think dogs limit ones options you should try children."

MIke, couldn't have said that better myself, we have been away with people with dogs, & also been away with people with children ....... I certainly know which I prefer!

Gerhardp1 posted:

Gentlemen, I agree. But the original whinge in this post was about dogs.

And I have done my penance with children, one now 24 and the other 21.

As to why I would travel with the knowledge of the dog, it was because I was leery of going to the tip alone, and when all said and done, one rainforest is much like another. I grew up in Tassie in the central highlands where there used to be plenty of forest (before the woodchipping), there used to be spectacular fishing, and the national parks didn't charge, you could go anywhere you wanted. No fourbys in those days though, except rare army jeeps.

But you can take children into parks and they don't regurlarly try and shag your leg like the staffie, which has persistence to be admired when trying to get his rocks off. At least you can whack them hard enough so they fall off without hurting them.

Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) posted:

Gerhardp1, I agree with you about dogs in general; I wouldn't inflict our crazy mut on anyone - he stays home. But driving long distances to find you're not welcome isn't a dog issue, it's a communication issue.

That sort of thing has happened to me a few times; walk a few km to see a waterfall only to find a sign near the end of the track stating the rest of the track is closed for whatever reason. Drive for half an hour along a track to get to a camping ground to find a sign saying closed. Why not put the signs at the start of the tracks? Both these instances were National Parks, strangely enough.

Miss'n Nissan posted:

Member-Bware, you hit the nail on the head, you know exactly where I am coming from, my complaint was not about the dog banning, it was about not being given a sensible amount of distance before the sign told us of the ban.
For joy, for joy, there is someone in the world that understands me :-)

Miss'n Nissan posted:

and Gerhardp1, NO the original whinge from me, in the post was NOT about Dogs.

silkwood posted:

Bilbo, National Parks ban dogs for more than just their aggressiveness and disturbance to wildlife. Call them up and ask why. Issues such as disease (many native wild animals can be susceptible to common dog diseases), lost animals (it has happened more than once when a dog has got loose and chased after an animal), urine (the smell of dogs urine can attract foxes nto an area they have not normally frequented, and, conversely can scare of native animals away from their normal range or keep them from waterholes), baiting (most National Parks have baiting programs for foxes. Your dog could find a bait much easier than you could detect he's eaten it) and also, because they believe the only animals which belong in National Parks are natives.

I'm sure your dog is terrific (actually he sounds great!), but that doesn't make him any more suitable to enter a National Park.

I once saw a ranger go ballistic at a guy walking his dog (some kind of rat-type thing, I think it was a maltese:) ) in Telowie Gorge here in SA (he apologised profusely for his outburst later). His reason- this is one of the few areas they had managed to have population growth for yellow-footed wallabies (an endangered species in some areas) in a place people could have the privelidge of seeing them. This had taken much work to keep foxes away, and he was appalled that this could be threatened by someone's dog. His name was Stewart (Binnie?) and I believe he's still stationed at Mambray Creek if you want to discuss it with him.

As has been said in a previous post, perhaps we can have just a few areas in major parks where dogs are allowed, but how do you police those who'll disregard the restrictions (they disregard them now!)

Absolutely no offence to you or your dog.

Cheers,

Mark

Member - Errol (York WA) posted:

On ya Bilbo , couldn't agree more . Our little fella a very well traveled dog , he go's most places we go with no problems .

Bilbo posted:

Mark,

I'm fully aware of WHY dogs are banned in National Parks. I don't take my dog there.

Cape Keraurdren is not a National Park. Neither is the township of Broome.

What's been said here, by some, is ban all dogs from caravan parks and I suspect, the bush in general.

As a prospector of 20 years, in the W.A. bush I strongly suggest that humans have done far more damage to the bush than dogs ever will. They don't leave rubbish behind, don't chainsaw trees down, don't make complete fwits of themselves, don't get monkey drunk and play up all night, don't have a drug problem, don't landclear, don't tear down fences, don't chew up tracks, don't shoot sheep, don't add to the greenhouse effect, don't shoot roos, emus and goannas just for the hell of it etc,etc, etc

Geez, gimme a trained dog anyday. They leave very small "footprints", unlike the human race, some of which still needs training.

I also reckon that the use of 1080 bait for dogs is vile. It is a poison for which thier is no antidote. That in itself is a crime IMHO. See my earlier thread on two dogs being poisoned in a carvan park. If a poison must be used then an anitidote should be available that can be carried with you to treat an unintentional poisoning.

Bilbo

Miss'n Nissan posted:

Here, here Bilbo. well said.

Shaker posted:

Mike, stacks of caravan parks allow dogs, provided they are accompanied by responsible owners.

Miss'n Nissan posted:

My sentiments exactly dj. where we go, our little dacshund goes too,and if she can't we don't either. ;-)

dj Patrol posted:

Very good question mike mabey they should all leave just in case they cause a virus or something to the millions of kangaroos.
dj patrol

silkwood posted:

It's good to see you gys understand the issue, and aren't just sounding off like rednecks.

Cheers,

Mark

Mike Harding posted:

You don't need to patronise us Mark.

And we're still waiting for supporting references to claims regarding this matter you have made in these, and other, posts??? Blanket statements by an individual on the internet don't cut the mustard - they need to be supported.

Mike Harding

silkwood posted:

Blanket statements don't cut the mustard? Show me where ANYONE here provides valid citations for their opinions? The whole site is full of blanket statements. I'll get hold of the correct citations to references Mike (as I said, it been 10years since I studied the subject but the references will still be there)., just show me one where you provided a citation for your remarks regarding "empire builders" or others provide for the crap about being controlled by masters from the US? Be honest, the whole bloody site is based upon blanket statements. Not one post would pass muster as a serious piece of information in any university.

Yes I shouldn't have mentioned the word research (but I WILL back it up) though the points I mentioned are available from a number of web sites from national parks, just look up "dogs foxes national parks" The sites aren't a valid referenced citation which I'd get away with for a disertation, but they're a damn site better backed up than the rubbish presented as fact on many of these posts. You can't have it both ways, demand facts but present opinion.

I'm not patronising, I'm dissappointed. I started looking at this site because I use my 4WD and recognised there was a great deal of experience (more than my own)and some good, well thought out information given (yes including your posts, Mike). But when it comes to discussion on issues where you aren't getting your own way good discussion gives way to rhetoric of the worst kind.

Sorry to have bothered you, I thought I presented information in a balanced way which gave a varied perspective of some complex but serious issues. It seems I should have just advocated a "they're all out to get us and we should have the right to do what we want regardless of the regulations" approach.

Bilbo, my apologies for mistaking the place as a national park, but my comments stand, I don't think the poor communication of the ban is acceptable (if indeed that's what it is).

cheers,

Mark

Stu-k posted:

I live in a neighbourhood that is full of barking dogs and most ignorant people think its their right to let them bark night and day.
So after spending 500k+ and working my guts out to pay for it I have to listen to their $5 mongels bark.
I try and get peace by going on hoilidays once a year and I am not a happy camper when people like my neigbours(which is about 80% of dogs owns) camp near me.
I agree people should be able to take their dogs camping and if they let them bark at the flys I should be able to shoot them, then we would all be happy with no repeat offenders!

silkwood posted:

Actually, Mike, I've slept on it and changed my mind. I've said I shouldn't have mentioned the "researched" word without the citations right infront of me, you were right. I'll ammend it to "well accepted opinion of most natural resource managers". This is easily confirmed by simple searches on the net. Reason I'm ammending is because it struck me- why should I go out of my way to find papers I haven't seen for 10 years when it would make NO difference to any who will still think it's their right to do as they want. Some here will look into the issue and perhaps change their minds, I know a number of people who have decided not to take their dogs into parks when they have discussed it with rangers.

The others? I could get a Nobel-Prize winning report on the issue and it would make one iota of difference.

Thanks for pointing out my innappropriate use of evidence. I won't do it again. Looking forward to ANYTHING which supports reasons for ignoring the rules (other than conspiracy theories about access issues being due to Bush wanting to close off National Parks to protect potential oil reserves which could be exploited by the US).

Stu-k, sorry, I see your point but can't agree. This concept is relevant for almost anything. I wouldn't ban kids from campgrounds (though sometimes I'd like to have banned my own!) even though some of them can be little sh%#s. I think there are places which are resonable for most activities, just not everywhere.

And Bilbo, I read your post about stuff the bans as pertaining also to NPs. That was presumtuous of me, I agree with most of your following comments.

Cheers,

Mark