Geoff (Newcastle, NSW) posted:

So does that mean if their refuse isn't rubbish, they aren't real people??

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

If there was only 1 smoker in the world then his butts spread all over wouldn't mater, but there are millions , each one smokes 30 per day so there you have 30 millions butts going to the enviroment each day,
Then there is the plastic / glass bottles thrown from vehicles , I might take a very small Dog where he should not be , I would not take a rottwieller and I, like Steve hate to see rubbish left ,Todays society has to much what we call disposable products, [ dirty stinken nappies] left 5 meters from bins etc ,

Member - Davoe (Nullagine) posted:

ahh so Doug when you come to some old explorers camp with old bottles and plates, saucepans laying around is that a Place of intrest or a digusting mess - you cant have it both ways

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

Davoe the Nullagine Nagger

....lol sorry mate .. Now C'Mon Davoe were' talkin 2007 not 1907 and back then and even when I was a kid people kept things, No disposable nappies etc, my Mum used to wash all mine [ poor bugger] there were no tissues , we had Hankerchiefs and really though how unhealthy were they , Mum and Dad would get every last grain of sugar from the bag, add a little water to get the last bit of Tomato Sauce , No drink cans hell you wouldn't throw a bottle away we got two-pence for them , I remember collecting the coke bottles at Rowley Park Speedway , would stand back and wait until a bloke took his mouthful then we would pounce and ask if we could have it .

Member - Davoe (Nullagine) posted:

Just stirring, but seriosly the old timers in the bush were far worse than today none of them ever took a thing out. you just need to look at the old woodcutters camps or sandlewood cutters, doggers etc.
Even some of the old drill sites would never get away with that these days

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

Hi Davoe.

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between, an historical site and people just leaving their rubbish with no thought of others?

Cheers Steve.

Member - Davoe (Nullagine) posted:

How many years does it take to make a disgusting mess an interesting site?
100 years?
50 years?
20 years?
5 years?

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

I seriously don't think people in years to come, would view a pile of disposable nappies, polystyrene cups and cigarette buts as an historical site.

Steve.

disco1942 posted:

Back in the good old days the rubbished sites were a fair distance apart. What we are getting now is wall to wall garbage.

PeterD

Member - Davoe (Nullagine) posted:

same as the old woodcutters never thought people would sift through the pieces of tin, rusty cups and bent plates along with smashed beer and tomato sauce bottles
and the place would get written up in a tourist magazine

Member - Glenn D (NSW) posted:

Hows it going Doug,

You cant have it both ways ,

How can you complain of others behaviour in National Parks , and say you also break the rules in the same paragraph.

"I might take a very small Dog where he should not be "

Maybe if the offenders had left "a very small amount of rubbish " it would be ok ?

Glenn.

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

Glenn
It's going really good, and I do have it both ways anytime I like and sorry if your nose out of joint and there's not a damn thing you can do about it , I live my life my way , I do things my way , I don't need your advice ....see ya

Member - Glenn D (NSW) posted:

Doug ,

OK I get it , anyone who doesnt share your point of view is wrong !

But I am open minded and always prepared to be straightened out by someone that 'really' knows whats going on.

Can you tell me how taking dogs into the National Park is ok ?

Or is it only ok for you ?

Glenn.

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

Glenn D
No it's not only ok for me , and you want me to tell you ,how taking dogs into the National Park is ok , No I don't have to tell you anything ,both you and I know that a Bull Terrier , Rotty, Alsation, or any other large dog is going maybe chase and kill wildlife and maybe bite some human,they have very loud barks, plus the fact they do bloody big bogs, So that would be the type of dog that you wouldn't really want on a holiday, Now on the other hand my Dog ,and I am only refering to my dog , I'm not responsible for other peoples dogs, My dog is very small , cannot run all that fast , could not have a hope in hell of catching a young rabbit, has never killed anything, if anything he would be the one that got taken, And when taking a little dog into ones life there is a commitment of care and love , and that's what Dusty gets,That's why he is still alive and will turn 11 in june, because I care, All my Life I have lived by common sense, I respect the rules as much as the next bloke , I was raised by my parents to know right from wrong, I was punished at school, we had respect for our elders, Today it's different , I see people walk to the intersection, the light says don't walk , they press the button as they walk past it and on through the DON'T WALK sign, and I can tell by your attitude that's exactly what you do , So when I take Dusty somewhere as in NP he is restricted for his own safety , and why do I take him , because he is my mate , I love him and were never apart,
Now you tell me why I shouldn't , and before you go on about what he might do think what I just told you , Oh and not all small dogs are innocent either , foxies are born killers, I am only refering to my dog , not others , as I said I am only responsible for mine ,
Why can't we take a six pack to the cricket or football , because of the actions of the minority ass-oles and that's what pi$$$es me off , the minority wins every time .

Doug

Member - Glenn D (NSW) posted:

You are dead right Doug ,

You just answered my question , you shouldnt take your dog into the NP because the guy camping next door who has left his dog at home will see you and think its a good idea.

Unfortunately the way our society is a minority of peoples actions can cause laws to be passed that affect all of us .

I am sure that there is a minority of people who think its ok to take dogs into NP's we'll just have to see what new law is passed when the rangers get sick of treading in dog poo. Maybe car searchs for everyone ?

Can it really be such a big deal to leave you dog at home.

'I can tell by your attitude that's exactly what you do ' , You must be physic ! You found out my secret ! Sometimes I press the button and dont cross at all !

Glenn.

navaraman posted:

Doug T, I need to defend the larger dogs here. I own a Rotty X German Shepherd and haven't and wouldn't take him to a NP if not permitted. He may do "big bogs" but that is entirely irrelevant as I always clean up after him anyway, as any good dog owner would. He doesn't bark unneccesarily and doesn't chase wildlife because he is trained not to. In fact large dogs tend to be more trainable than small yappy breeds IMO. I've bee bitten twice by dogs both times small breeds who's owners insisted that their dogs don't bite, even when on one occaision I was bleeding from the ankle. The owner couldn't secure her dog as she didn't even have a lead, I was working on her property so I told her once the dog was under control I would return and fix her problem, and charge her a second call out fee, she soon found a rope to tie the dog with.

The point is it's the owners who are the problems, not the dogs, as I'm sure you would agree.

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

Does that mean they will have dogs at their homes ...and tourists and whites won't

Juzzy posted:

I believe he was referring to the crocodiles, not the indigneous population.

Member - Doug T (W.A) posted:

WHO WENT AND GOT THE LAST BLOODY BALL ????

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

Hi Doug.

Unfortunately I have seen these camps in many N.Ps, I believe the answer is in education.

The problem with this is that the people running these N.Ps, don't dare say anything.

Steve.

warthog posted:

They had to put a wire fence around Mutitjulu to stop all the rubbish from the trad owners blowing toward the rock.

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

Hi Warthog.

The problem is, the powers that be would rather put a fence around the problem than work with the TOs and fix it.

Steve.

warthog posted:

Nope the fence fix works, the local mob simply do not care.

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

This goes back to my point about educating.

warthog posted:

Educating someone who is not interested is an execise in futility.

robak (QLD) posted:

They live their life their way , they do things their way , they don't need our advice.

Kazz44 posted:

Hi Guys, very interesting topic, I am only from the new school but I was bought up to respect nature and other peoples belongings, I guess the people that leave these camp sites discusting either had no teaching or they are just plane inconsiderate so-en soes, as for the dogs, well some people have ruined it for us as I was planning on going to parks but have a kelpie, very obedient but I wouldn't even dream of having her off the lead in respect, but I guess one cant even do that now. kaz

warthog posted:

You will find that in many instances the rangers will have dogs at their residences that are within the confines of the national park. I see this as double stds, rangers have their own dogs in the park but visitors are not permitted to bring a dog in on a lead.

Member - Steve T (NT) posted:

Doug.

One of my mates sitting here used to work down there and thought it was a camp, any way I understand what you're saying and my response above is still relevant.

Did you get any good parts for the troopy.

Steve.

warthog posted:

Why then are rangers permitted dogs at their residences within nat parks.

Juzzy posted:

Probably because it is just that - a residence. This would be zoned differently to the actual park itself even though it is 'in' the NP.

warthog posted:

which means they travel through the park to get to "the residence". They certainly do not always remain within the confines of the residence whist residing.

Member - Beatit (QLD) posted:

Hear hear! We are over regulated and under serviced. To object to this doesn't mean you are a ratbag. I agree that some of the things that have now been made issues are all about aiming at the lowest common denominator and not at common sense.

Kind regards

Bware (Tweed Valley) posted:

Agreed. It seems some people need laws to govern their lives because they're stupid or don't want to think for themselves and they follow the 'letter of the law'. Others follow the 'spirit of the law' by doing what they feel is right which generally coincides with the laws if you're intelligent. I indicate at a roundabout because it's practical and considerate, not because it's the law. At 3am at the same roundabout I don't indicate because there are no other cars to indicate to.