Food for thought.Dogs in Nat/Parks

Submitted: Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 19:58
ThreadID: 109390 Views:3685 Replies:17 FollowUps:65
This Thread has been Archived
I was chatting to a mate of mine who lives on Flinders Island.He use to live and work in FNQ.He asked where i was heading to next and i said i dont know because some Nat/Parks allow dogs and others do not i will decide once i have checked.He Just laughed and said this is just plain crazy.He commented in the parks there are feral pigs,feral goats,wild dogs,feral cats,drunken feral locals plus crocs and they will not allow a dog in on a lead.He said i know what i would prefer in there.I just laughed and then we chatted about something else.Latter on i remembered what he had said and i felt this is food for thought.
Cheers all and have a safe trip
Back Expand Un-Read 1 Moderator

Reply By: The Explorer - Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 20:35

Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 20:35
oh God not again....

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 538575

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:15

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:15
Did you mean "oh Dog, not again"? An edit feature would be good...quick, start a thread about it. :-) (damn text smilies...I feel so old fashioned)
0
FollowupID: 823101

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:34

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:34
No - I spent 2 seconds using the preview and spell checker before posting so all good..
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 823110

Reply By: Tony H15 - Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 20:49

Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 20:49
Probably because of the diseases/parasites domestic animals can carry. While it's true there are many feral animals on NPs; it''s unfortunate that they can't read, so they don't know they're no allowed in; and, eradicating them is simply a pipe dream - it can't be done. As the ferals live in the NPs they would have the same diseases/parasites the natives have, whereas an illegally introduced pet can introduce strains of disease/parasites against which the natives (and ferals) would have no immunity. NP authorities can, however, restrict domestic animals, if they don't , it's just open slather. I have a dog, and because of that I can't camp in any NPs - dammed annoying!
AnswerID: 538576

Follow Up By: Member - Stuart and Gunny - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:57

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:57
Hi Tony H15 my 10 cents worth has been hyjacked.I dont believe it is because of diseases/parasites.At the moment i am at King Ash Bay.Im looking toward where i am heading next.I will go and stay at Lorella Springs and spend some time in Limmen Nat/Park.In Limmen Nat/Park i can stay with a dog at Batten Creek.I can not stay at Southern Lost City.I can not stay at Butterfly Springs.I can stay at Cox River.I can stay at Limmen River Station.I can not stay at Towns River.I can stay at St Vidgeons Ruins.So the fact i can stay at half the camp sites but not the others why?
Cheers Tony

0
FollowupID: 823143

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:24

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:24
Because those that will let you in are not up with the game.

I simply can believe they allow dogs on any national park.

They have enough intorduced vermin without introducing more.

Or perhaps those you are allowed to bring dogs into are just degradred scrub of no ecological or conservation value.

seriousy...get over it.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 823232

Reply By: johno59 - Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 21:24

Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 21:24
It's about responsible pet ownership. Unfortunately there are bleep s out there that just abuse the system. We have 2 cats that travel with us everywhere inc National Parks. They don't go outside our caravan except to sleep of a night in which case they spend the time in our vehicle. I am more than happy go,pay the fine whatever that might be.
AnswerID: 538579

Follow Up By: Bigfish - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:30

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:30
Wild cats do heaps more damage than a dog. Dont know the law about having cats in NP,s...JUST PLAIN IRRESPONSIBLE, SELF CENTERED AND BLOODY STUPID..
2
FollowupID: 823109

Follow Up By: Member - Frank P (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:21

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:21
Despite being responsible, it's still illegal. From the Environment NSW website:
"Pets in parks
National parks and reserves are refuges for native animals. Dogs and *****other domestic pets**** (other than trained assistance animals such as guide dogs) ****must not be taken into national parks, state conservation areas, nature reserves, historic sites or Aboriginal areas,***** because:", etc

**** is my emphasis****

FrankP

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 823112

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:54

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:54
Hey Johno I guess you don't understand irony?

Given that you take 2 cats into national parks, .

Wouldn't that make you irresponsible ?

Doesn't that make you one of those beeps that abuse the system ?

It is people like you that these laws were made for, people like you ruin it for everyone else, I can only hope that you get caught or your cats take a 1080 bait, I have absolutely no sympathy for you if they do.

Phil

1
FollowupID: 823118

Follow Up By: River Swaggie - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:58

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:58
Just wondering 2 cats pooping and peeing 24/7 in a caravan where is there waste left.....
0
FollowupID: 823119

Follow Up By: cookie1 - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:55

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 16:55
Domestic Cats in the Outback are a huge problem, I have been confronted by Feral Cats and would hate for a young kid to happen upon one thinking it is just a cat.

It only takes a minute for little Foo Foo to sneak out of the car / caravan / tent / whatever, get lost and then start having to kill the fauna to survive, I don't think there is any intention on the owners to leave their pets behind but it is where the problem has started

I think you'll find that many a property owner that sees a cat wont blink an eye when they put a bullet in it.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 823134

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Monday, Sep 08, 2014 at 18:03

Monday, Sep 08, 2014 at 18:03
We just got back from corner country and the amount of reptiles particularly gidge skinks and some sand monitor remains we found that gad been eaten by cats is huge
Cats are a major problem in the wild and much more difficult to eradicate than the other feral pests
0
FollowupID: 823378

Reply By: Dennis Ellery - Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 21:39

Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 21:39
It’s a politically correct thing.
I’ve been through national parks all around Aussie and the local’s camps are full of mangy dogs.
If you are a traveller – dogs are banned.
AnswerID: 538581

Reply By: DiscoTourer - Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 22:37

Wednesday, Sep 03, 2014 at 22:37
It does depend on the colour of your skin. I have a good mate, who is part aboriginal, and he can take his dog into any national park...all he needs to state is that it's for cultural reasons, and all is well.

Brett...
AnswerID: 538582

Follow Up By: gbc - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:47

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:47
That doesn't make it 'well', just too hard to bother to pursue. That he can get away with it is a real shame and the thin edge of a wedge for dog owners trying to get pooches into parks.
0
FollowupID: 823095

Follow Up By: Aussi Traveller - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:15

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:15
Disco That is pure bull bleep
0
FollowupID: 823116

Follow Up By: DiscoTourer - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 00:16

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 00:16
Hilarious!
0
FollowupID: 823159

Reply By: mikehzz - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:04

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:04
They don't let dogs into NP's for the same reasons that they lock up fire trails....because a percentage of the population do the wrong thing and ruin it for those who are responsible owners. The only person who really wants a dog in a NP is the owner of that dog, everyone else would prefer the dog wasn't there for a multitude of possible reasons most of them related to the owner. Or alternately, it could be like visiting Paris where you can have a meal in a restaurant and have a dog sitting in a chair eating its meal off the table next to you. Then you dodge dog droppings on the footpath all the way back to your hotel. Dogs can bring so much extra to everyone else's experience of a destination.... :-)
AnswerID: 538585

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:21

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:21
Usually a lively discussion to say the least whenever it comes up.

In the interest of clarity on the “official position” in New South Wales, the following is from the National Parks people.

And noting, I'm not intending to debate the rules, I'll leave that to the National Parks people, they make them!

Pets in parks

National parks and reserves are refuges for native animals. Dogs and other domestic pets (other than trained assistance animals such as guide dogs) must not be taken into national parks, state conservation areas, nature reserves, historic sites or Aboriginal areas, because:

• Native animals see dogs as predators. The lasting scent left by dogs can easily scare small animals and birds away from their homes, often causing them to leave their young unprotected.

• Dog faeces carry diseases which can be harmful to wildlife and people, and also add nutrients to the soil, increasing the spread of weeds.

• If dogs and other domestic pets have frightened native animals away from popular visitor areas, there will be no wildlife for other visitors to see.

• Dogs can interfere with the enjoyment of other park visitors.

However, you can walk your dog in some regional parks. These large, open spaces in urban areas are managed by the NPWS to give city residents recreational opportunities in pleasant, natural surroundings.

The following link details this information

Pets in Parks
AnswerID: 538586

Follow Up By: Les PK Ranger - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:40

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:40
• If dogs and other domestic pets have frightened native animals away from popular visitor areas, there will be no wildlife for other visitors to see.

This is a bigger one that many think, dogs and cats mark their territory by peeing around the place, and poop of course too.
Native animals are very sensitive to these smells and avoid these as they can tell the scent of a predator.
This is from several conversations had with SA park rangers over the years when the subject has come up.

We did a trip into a coastal park here about 2 years ago.
Unbeknownst to me or others, one party that joined us on the way had his dog in the car, it never left the car in the park where we had lunch.
Ranger happened along, and he was fined.
Rules are rules, but sometimes you have to wonder how far things should go.
I believe you can drive through a park that has a through road with animals in a vehicle, but without stopping.
0
FollowupID: 823103

Follow Up By: Member - Munji - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:45

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:45
I must admit there is nothing worse when a person allows their pet dog to run around other peoples camp area or barking for no good reason other than being a nuisance.
On the other hand, wild animals generally keep away from your camp area unless you leave food etc out for them to scavage.
So the issue is also about other campers NOT being made uncomfortable.
A little like people running generators all night, it can and does annoy other people.
1
FollowupID: 823105

Follow Up By: cookie1 - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 17:00

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 17:00
Yep agree with that

we all get upset when we see people doing the wrong thing when it comes to driving on closed roads or tearing up racks and damaging the environment as it leads to closures of areas.

Now if we then are seen to condone the "slight" bending of the rules by taking our pets into areas where they expressly forbid taking our animals do you not think that it is another reason for them to close these areas? Simply citing, people are irresponsibly bringing their pets in so they don't care about the environment so let's close it for the sake of the Fauna.

Food for thought

cheers
2
FollowupID: 823135

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Monday, Sep 08, 2014 at 20:15

Monday, Sep 08, 2014 at 20:15
We are having a hard enough time getting reasonable access to our parks and reserves without giving the bureaucrats another excuse to lock us out of more because of domestic pets in parks

I am a dog owner and see no place for them in the parks apart from my own selfish reasons which is not acceptable
When we travel our pets stay at home.
2
FollowupID: 823391

Reply By: Member - Noldi (WA) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:17

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:17
Do dogs only do this in Australia? seems like the UK and US GENERALLY allow dogs into national parks, on leads.
AnswerID: 538590

Follow Up By: Member - Munji - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:14

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:14
I see, so we follow their lead I guess
0
FollowupID: 823115

Follow Up By: Member - Noldi (WA) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:38

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:38
I'm just questioning the justifications put up. Seems to me that if its not a huge problem in a small country with 70 million people you would have to question the impact in a larger country with a smaller population
0
FollowupID: 823117

Follow Up By: Member - John and Val - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:24

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:24
Hi Noldi,
I dont know the situation in the US, but the UK National Park system is very different to ours. UK national parks have things like farms and villages in them, and the parks are managed for multiple purposes. Our Aussie parks are mostly single purpose areas ie for nature/landscape conservation.

Cheers,

Val.
J and V
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 823122

Follow Up By: Les PK Ranger - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:35

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:35
I wonder if more severe Winters keeps the feral animal problem under control in the UK & US ?
Coupled with the unique small wildlife we have here in Australia . . .

It is common knowledge that a single wild cat eats around 80 to 90 small critters EVERY DAY . . . lizards, birds, mammals, insects too I imagine.

I've seen wild cats the size of a small dog (like a cocker spaniel size for example), and very healthy in condition.
Having seen wild dogs (ex domestic) in the bush when bushwalking over the years, they always appear mangy and very malnourished.

Both are bad in the bush, but this leads me to believe wild cats are a larger issue as far as hurting our native wildlife.
1
FollowupID: 823123

Follow Up By: Member - Noldi (WA) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:42

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:42
Hi Val,
I suspect it's a lot to do with their cultural as well, our Wednesday local always had a couple of well behaved dogs warming themselves by the fire. Was not uncommon to see them in the coffee shops on the weekends.

Interesting in Perth we live in a very pommy area, the local coffee shop brings out water for our dogs everytime we go.

0
FollowupID: 823124

Follow Up By: get outmore - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:46

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:46
the uk killed of most of its wildlife years ago.
and no I dont recall seeing dogs in Yosemite or Yellowstone etc.
besides bears and cougers and wolves would love to snack on even the biggest rotty
0
FollowupID: 823216

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:39
As has been mentioned "National Parks" in other countries may be very different in purpose to those in Australia.

In this country we have endless numbers of "nature and conservation reserves" with pretty restrictive rules.
pretty well no hunting, no fishing, no removal or damaging of vegitation....AND no introduction of ferral pets/pests.

We have a large number of no take fishing areas in Australia many associated with National Parks.....Britan has ONE and only one no take fishing zone and that is assocaited with an island national park.

Yes as mentioned national parks overseas, allow, farming, forestry, motorsport, hunting, shooting and fishing.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 823235

Follow Up By: PajeroTD - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 05:07

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 05:07
@Get Outmore, actually you can take dogs into Yellowstone N.P. I have done it. You can even walk your dog up to the seating in front of Old Faithful. There are some restricted areas where they tell you not to take dogs, but you can certainly take your dog to the park. Not sure about Yosemite, but I would imagine it to be much the same.
0
FollowupID: 823284

Reply By: Honky - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:21

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:21
Don't go to the UK than as they have dogs in national parks and pubs.

Honky
AnswerID: 538593

Reply By: Member - KBAD - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:32

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 13:32
All the evidence i have seen and that is with my own eyes is that animals were actually attracted to the strange smells and actively investigated them. I don't believe that the real truth behind the driving reasons for the exclusion of domesticated pets from National Parks are being talked about. Take the way the Dingo is treated for instance it has been in this country for as the fossil record suggests the last three thousand years (which makes them a native in my book), yet it is the same do gooders who want pets banned from National parks yo SAVE the natives that run around baiting the hell out of the country trying to exterminate them so i can't believe anyone who bleats on about saving native species when this sort of activity is not only allowed but is encouraged, and yes my family did own a cattle station and i have first hand experience of what an out of control population of dingoes can do. But there are better control methods than indiscriminate baiting so what ever the hidden idealogical agenda is call it for what it is and don't try and spin BS about why you don't want Fluffy or Fido visiting you lovely pristine park..
AnswerID: 538594

Follow Up By: disco driver - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:08

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:08
Can you enlighten me on the better methods to control feral animals.

As a former licenced user of 1080 I can assure others that 1080 baiting in WA at least was far from indiscriminate.

Thanks

Disco.
0
FollowupID: 823128

Follow Up By: Member - KBAD - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:40

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:40
The first point you make is the control of feral animals as I stated in my post I do not believe that the Dingo is a feral animal it is a native. Secondly 1080 is only in the dosage used here successful against dogs and foxes it is of no use against feral cats. There is also anecdotal evidence from graziers that resistance is building up in fox populations to 1080 one case i know of is where a farmer saw the same fox two years running actually following his vehicle and eating baits.
In some circumstances the best control of feral cats are dingo's and foxes not that that is a reason to allow them to overpopulate but a balance can be found.
Indiscriminate baiting is to me the placing of baits through the use of mass distribution by airplanes, driving along access roads and fence lines and throwing them out the back of vehicles as quickly as you can handle them, replacing due care and attention in the placement of baits in strategic area's at strategic times, like for example at the end of a dry season where all wildlife has to congregate around water access points where that is possible. To much is made of the economics of mass baiting and not enough attention given to strategic thinking in regard to the best time and place to bait. Other alternative methods a controlled shooting program, the use of a licensed and sufficiently skilled "dogger". Development and use of other drugs that control fertility in the targeted animal (available but not produced in quantity at present due to low demand).
To often i have heard of the argument against a carefully thought out and in acted program that it needs to be a mass distribution method as otherwise it is not economically viable for the business to survive or the area to be covered, if the business or area is that close to the razors edge perhaps a different model for the sustainability of the enterprise needs to be investigated. It would be interesting to know whether people are aware that 1080 baiting takes place next to suburban area's and as stated by the manufacturer of the poison all care should be taken to prevent ingestion of the poison, if it is so safe for all other animals why then do the warnings which include making sure that it does not come into contact with skin or is ingested by children so prominent.
1
FollowupID: 823129

Follow Up By: Member - John and Val - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:47

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 15:47
Disco, there is quite a difference between the east and west parts of the continent in native animals' tolerance to 1080. In WA many of the native plants, particularly the"poison peas" have 1080-like substances in them so the local native animals are tolerant of 1080 - hence you can use 1080 baits in the west and the native animals should not be much affected. East coast plants don't contain that poison so there is little resistance to baits among the native animal population.
Cheers,
Val
J and V
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 823130

Follow Up By: disco driver - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 19:31

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 19:31
Without getting into along discussion re the use of 1080 in the east, I can't because I admit to knowing stuff all about what goes on in the eastern states, in WA the use of 1080 is highly regulated and there has been many years research by the WA Govt in working out the best and safest ways to use it.

For example the bait size and the poison load per bait varies considerably depending on what the "target" animal is.

The broad scale programmes are strictly monitoredby both the baiting agency (usually the Ag Dept) and the Environmental Protection Authorities.

A GPS log is kept on the location of the laid baits and they are restricted to a rate of only 1 bait/sq Km in pastoral and Nat Park lands.

Disco.
0
FollowupID: 823148

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:55

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:55
Probably indiscriminent because baits don't discriminate when it comes to which animals eat the baits. Many properties border national parks, what of the properties animals. And of course, baiting isn't limited to national parks as far as I'm aware. Baiting is a cruel practice, one only has to see an animal in it's final hours to see that. Same goes for rabbit poisons - not pretty to watch. It's true some animals, rabbits, foxes, cats, cane toads, etc, have no place in Australia, so we should endeavour to rid the country of them. All animals have the same right to life as we have, regardless of our personal likes and dislikes, but the onus is on us to ensure we use the most humane methods available to rid ourselves of the ones that don't belong. Licenced shooters, I believe, is a humane method; unfortunately, that isn't possible in most cases: how many bullets would it take to rid the country of cane toads?
1
FollowupID: 823185

Follow Up By: Tony F8 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 16:20

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 16:20
Do birds not pick up 1080 baits and drop them klms from there origin, of course they do, so in that it is indiscriminate, Malcom Douglas lost his favorite dog Bonnie to a 1080 bait, on investigation some 8 klms from where it was laid. It is common for this to happen, our staffy and the local koala don't have a problem getting on, apart from the koala sometimes chasing the staffy, animals can get along, sometimes much better than people.
3
FollowupID: 823200

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 17:50

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 17:50
Yes, that's very obvious in forums like this!
1
FollowupID: 823207

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 22:16

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 22:16
not so long ago TonyH15 I vaguely recall your good self denouncing the mental stability of legally licenced shooters, while we pushed the benefits of reducing feral populations.

Changed your tune somewhat it seems??
0
FollowupID: 823222

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 23:21

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 23:21
Not at all, I'm talking about licensed professionals, professionals who know what they are doing. Not dopes with gun licences who get their jollies killing animals. Believe it or not, animals have just as much right to life as you do. If they need to be eradicated, by all means eradicate them, but employ professionals to do it humanely, not gun happy dopes who couldn't hit the side of a barn.
You failed to present a logical argument last time fisho, you couldn't even remember who said what; so, I have no reason to think your mental acuteness has improved any. Your next comment will surely bear me out!
1
FollowupID: 823225

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 00:24

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 00:24
As it appears you are not aware, every legal firearm owner is a "licenced shooter".
Id wager also that every proffessional shooter got there by having an interest in firearms and hunting, not because the Vocational studies officer at the high school suggested it as a career choice.
0
FollowupID: 823227

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:28

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:28
Give a dope a rope!
0
FollowupID: 823234

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:45

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:45
Fisho64, being a "licenced shooter" does not make a person a professional.

I have a gun licence and couldn't hit the side of Cordillo Downs sheering shed from 20 metres I reckon.

A professional shooter will know where to shoot the animal, the correct capability of their weapon and amunition and so they don't spend a clip worth of lead on one animal, they have a vested interest to ensure a one shot/kill policy where the animal will die (supposedly) in a humane fashion.

They usually have an accompanying permit with a "bag limit" too.

Sorry mate but I have to side with Tony H15 on this one.

Fab.


0
FollowupID: 823244

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 12:07

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 12:07
Fully understand what you are saying Fab, but you may be missing my point. Professional shooters dont get there by deciding at high school that they are going to do an apprenticeship and follow that vocation. Everyone that i know has got there by way of enjoying shooting or hunting as a sport/pastime.
Tonys stance had been that anyone who enjoyed this pastime must be an unhinged phsycopath waiting to explode.
1
FollowupID: 823246

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 12:42

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 12:42
Incorrect again fisho: my stance has always been anyone who 'enjoys' killing an animal is loopy. It was you fisho, and your strange mates, that put the 'unhinged phsycopath waiting to explode' slant on it.

Misrepresenting another's point of view is only giving yourself more rope, and you seem to have garnered the market on that.

Oh and of course a classic from fisho: anyone that doesn't hunt, lives in a condominium and has no right to eat meat. That's in black and white with fisho's signature attached.

The dope took the rope!
0
FollowupID: 823248

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 14:00

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 14:00
Exploroz seems to have gone skew wiff here on my phone-followups are out of sequence?

Tony, moving to the personal attack phase of your arguments does you no favours.
0
FollowupID: 823250

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 17:34

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 17:34
Just quoting you fisho!
0
FollowupID: 823254

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 18:48

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 18:48
Hmmm, i dont recall that "dope" quote being anything to do with me, not even sure what it means, maybe something metrosexual?

Still Fab has a point in that a licenced firearm owner does not by any length ensure either accuracy or hunting experience.
Perhaps the answer could be another more stringent type of permit covering those aspects which then covers the controlled dispatch of feral vermin in relevant crown controlled areas.
This would allow those states with basket case economies to controll vermin at minimal cost, which may otherwise be put in the "no money available" category.
1
FollowupID: 823257

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 19:39

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 19:39
I will wade into this pro shooter debate as to how someone starts pro shooting.

I have shot professionally, not because I had a thing for firearms or what people call sport. My shooting days came from having to control foxes at lambing time ,and carcassing roos because they became to many in numbers for the amount of feed.

I HATE killing anything even to this day, unless it is for control or consumption.

I carry a hammer all the time for when I see an injured animal on the side of the road. If I can pull up I will and put the poor bastard out of it's misery before the crows pick it's eyes out and it dies very slowly.

I can never call shooting animals a sport. ever ever ever.
1
FollowupID: 823262

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:11

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:11
just out of curiosity how about fishing?
0
FollowupID: 823268

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:20

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:20
Fisho, your right I can’t attribute the dope comment to you, but I’m sure you’ll remember these tags you hung on me in our previous discussions: I must carry a manbag, I must wear socks with sandals, I must live in a city apartment, you asked if I had an AVO out against me, I’m a vegan fruit loop, I’m sarcastic, threatening, confrontational, abusive, bitter, have an anger management problem, I’m prohibited from owning firearms, I’m unsuited to firearm ownership, city people are of the opinion that country folk are there for their amusement.

Do you really think ‘I’m’ being personal?

Oh, and lets not forget you opted to crank it all up again in this thread,

BTW, I agree with everything you said in your second paragraph, and that really pains me!
0
FollowupID: 823270

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:54

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 20:54
See Tony, its much better if you dont let personal bitterness cloud your dialogue...
:-)
0
FollowupID: 823273

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 21:39

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 21:39
Perhaps you'd be better off listening to your own advice fisho!
0
FollowupID: 823275

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 22:05

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 22:05
Im listening to it being repeated :-), so it must be fairly relevant
0
FollowupID: 823278

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:57

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 08:57
yet again, like a great many animal controll issues, so often many of the arguments in the debate are not logical but emotional and from the cuddly critter angle.

The fact is that nearly every animal that dies in its natural stste in the wild will die either a viloent death or a lingering one or both.

Nature is cruel........no realy nature has no morals, no emotions and no feeling.

The fact is we have rampant populations of a variety of feral animals in variuos areas....if they are not controlled.....mostly that means killed.....many other animals will die unpleasant deaths.

people talk about how cruel 1080 is.....fair enough.....but how cruel is it to leave sheep walking arround with the guts ripped out.
Some farmers suffer losses in the hundreds each year.....some so many they have been forced to abandon certain areas and certain stock types.

Dingoes are not a native animal......they are introduced......yes there is a strong case that stable near pure bred populations of dingoes actually keep other ferals under control and they do little to bother stockl.

BUT, the problem is there are a hell of a lot of cross breed wild dogs....these dogs combine the worst of the dingo and the feral dog........and in fact in some areas they predominate...these are not dingoes, they do bother stock and they kill and maim for fun.


If you had seen what these ferals do...you would not be so squeamish about baiting and shooting these cruel killers.

cheers
1
FollowupID: 823291

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 20:06

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 20:06
Bantam,
You make some valid points.
Pure dingoes are VERY few in numbers these days. The biggest problem with 1080 is that firstly, it affects a broader range of animals than that of which it is targeted at. There are large numbers of reports of wildlife and pets dying trough accidental poisoning by 1080. 1080 in itself is a cruel death for any living animal. It's slow and painful. Seriously for the same price, why not lay baits that sterilize the animal instead? Not that I advocate the use of any bait what so ever.
The main argument against the Dingo is their tendency to attack sheep. Yes they do....... and I might point out that they also cop the blame for stock attacks by any canine, Dingo related or not. As soon as a dog is seen in the area, it automatically becomes a Dingo attack.
On that point, sheep are an introduced species too. Far more recently than Dingoes (note 250 years vs 10,000 years).
Dingoes do help to maintain equilibrium amongst the animal kingdom by controlling fox numbers (another introduced species) and rabbit numbers. Although rabbits don't attack sheep, they do eat any low lying herbage which is the main staple of sheep, hence forcing farmers into buying feed. They are also heavily responsible for soil erosion.
Furthermore, the attack by Dingoes on humans is something like a 1:1000 ratio compared to domestic dogs.
I fail to see any reason why Dingoes are so hated in this country. The argument of "the poor mutilated sheep" is moot. Sheep are not pets to graziers, they are simply an asset. Their compassion extends only as far as their financial loss....live exports are testament that graziers don't give a rats about the sheep once money has changed hands.
I grew up in the country in sheep territory. I've seen the devastation caused by foxes and also wild dogs. Incidentally, being way south of the Dingo fence, I doubt whether any of the attacks were Dingo related.
I've been fortunate enough to be able to take the blinkers off and also see the good work and the importance our top order predator has in the food chain. OK so Dingoes aren't for everyone....yeah I get that. But to target them with baits and culling to the point where the pure native Dingo is almost extinct is beyond comprehension. Once extinct, nothing can bring a species back.Australia is responsible for the highest number of animal extinctions in the world. Not a tag anyone should be proud of.....and why? Because we are a young nation and have not yet seen the long term effects of our stupid actions.
Plagues are man made problems. Did we have fox problems 300 years ago? Cane toad problems? Koala problems? Kangaroo problems? Dingo problems? No. If left alone, nature has a wonderful way of sorting itself out. So now man is hell bent on trying to fix the problems they created by making more modifications to the natural food chain. Not real smart in anyone's books.
Anyway, I'm not here to sway anyone's opinion and I'm glad there are so many differences of opinions on here. Again I thank you Bantam, Fisho and Tony...you have all bought lots of valid points to the table. One last thing, if you haven't already seen this doco, I urge you to watch it. It shows how in the right environment, co-existence between Dingoes, sheep, marsupials and other native floral and fauna can be found.
Thanks and Happy Fathers day too. :)
Dingo: Wild dog at war
0
FollowupID: 823331

Reply By: Cheryl & Ian (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:06

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:06
I'm not convinced by the argument that dogs being predators frighten the native animals anymore than us humans do. We live on a 30 acre bush block with our three dogs who get walked off lead twice a day and they pee and poo plenty on these walks. They also like to eat the abundent amounts of roo, wombat and possum poo that turns up everyday on our walking tracks. Most days we also encounter roos/wallaby's, the occasional echidna and in summer come across plenty of lizards.

I would love to camp in national parks with my dogs (on lead of course), but know it will happen.

Cheryl

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 538601

Follow Up By: Cheryl & Ian (NSW) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:14

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:14
Sorry last sentense should read 'Know it will NEVER happen'

Cheryl

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 823136

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:32

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:32
Hi

I'll think you will find its a combination of reasons why dogs are not allowed in most NPs. You can probably pick any single reason and find justification for it being unreasonable, but combined they possibly have a good case.

Also I suspect the main reason dogs are not allowed in NPs is because they can be just plain annoying which is why (for example) there are dog beaches and no dog beaches ...nothing to do with wildlife whatsoever, they simply represent a potential interference with other peoples enjoyment of the location, a fair enough reason if you ask me. You love your dog but dont expect everyone else to.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 823139

Follow Up By: Shaker - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 00:24

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 00:24
The same could be said about kids, particularly ones on mini bikes!

1
FollowupID: 823160

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:21

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:21
No animal is 'naturally' frightened by another species. Animals learn by experience and that experience is passed on to their young, which in time over many, many generations will become a natural wariness. Most will be wary of other species, be that because of noise, smell or unfamiliarity, but not naturally frightened - wary is a better word. Dogs are naturally noisy, an animal hearing it come will naturally scamper away, but is it fear or just natural self protection?
0
FollowupID: 823187

Reply By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:36

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 18:36
Pfft...try having a best mate "dog" like mine. I can't even travel with her into some states let alone parks. And she's more native than vegemite.
Fab.
AnswerID: 538603

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:05

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:05
Dingos are an introduced species, at what stage of introduction do we start to class an animal as feral. Don't get me wrong I would hate to see dingos removed, and certainly they are seen my most as a necessary species in controlling both Australian fauna and flora, but still they are an introduced species. In centuries to come no doubt foxes, feral cats, even the now almost ubiquitous cane toad will be classed as a natural species.
0
FollowupID: 823186

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 14:23

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 14:23
G'Day Tony,
Good question. The Australian Dingo has been around for around 6000 years based on found fosil datings. They appear in Aboriginal rock art that dates back over 3500 years. Some experts suggest their inhabitance in Australia dates back to over 10,000 years.
OK so maybe not technically a native but it sure predates any National Park status. Effectively, the natural habitat has been reclassified and often the Dingo is excluded from areas in which it once roamed.
Foxes were introduced by the English gentry for hunting/sporting purposes, the cane toad to help eradicate a parasite found in cane and cats (domestics that have turned feral) were introduced as pets. In all of these cases, the numbers have swelled to a point where their existance impacts the environment and food sources of many of our true native animals.
Maybe I'm biased but I believe the Dingo is massively important to the ecology......each to their own. I'm sure sheep farmers would disagree. :)
Fab.
0
FollowupID: 823196

Follow Up By: Shaker - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 16:48

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 16:48
If there are fossils of dingos, then that indicates a minimum of 10,000 years ago.
1
FollowupID: 823202

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:16

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:16
They came from Asia originally. I lived in Malaysia for two years, the number of Dingos, both there and in Thailand, is phenomenal. Most seem a tad larger. When I arrived in Malaysia, I took over someone elses pet, Jack. If ever there was a dog that looked like a Dingo it was Jack. Loved going walkabout.

I worked and trained with dogs for the larger part of my life and during that time did a study on them investigating the pros and cons of using them in the armed services. Some interesting facts I gleaned from the CSIRO: the widest part of a Dingo is his head (aside from fat ones in captivity), they can't get stuck; Dingos have been seen shepherding their blind mates, Guide Dogs Australia actually investigated them for use because of that trait; Dingos don't normally need to drink water during a good season, they get sufficient moisture from plants, bugs, and prey animals; a large part of their diet is made up of bugs and plants, particularly during bad seasons; they can travel 60 - 80 klm per day patrolling their home turf; they have an inbuilt sense if something enters their domain, no matter how far away, they will track it down and investigate; a Dingo transplanted from a tropical area to a cold climate survived because it was able to grow a thick, lush coat within a relatively short timespan. Truly amazing animals!
0
FollowupID: 823213

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:18

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 18:18
Nice looking fella (the dog that is), what's his name.
0
FollowupID: 823214

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:32

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 11:32
G'Day Tony.
I'm impressed mate. All the points you made are very true. A couple of other interesting facts..... Dingoes don't bark (although at times they make a noise similar to a bark - usually with Dingoes who have spent time around domestics), their head can rotate over 180 degrees, they don't emit pheromones, they only go on heat once a year (domestics are twice a year), 75% of Dingoes don't survive to see their first birthday (shot, poisoned, road kill, starvation etc), the male Dingo takes the primary parenting role, they have one mate/partner for life, they come in 3 colours (orange - most common, sandy, and black/tan comb), in captivity they can live to 25 years of age, pure dingoes are void of any genetic problems like hips etc, they shed their coat (badly) seasonally, thier coat colour will adapt to their surrounding environment over time, they can run at speeds in excess of 60kmp/h and their joints are said to be double-jointed. They don't rehouse well prefering to stay with one family for life. Their skull is also significantly different to that of a domestic to accomodate a larger brain and advanced jaw structure. Anyway...that'll do for now.
They are amazing for sure.

SHAKER ..... Agree. Been here a lot longer than any white man claiming Australian status.

My baby is 15 months old now. Her name is Dina the Dingo. She gets along great with our Maltesse bleep zu and Maltesse Poodle, and the 3 kids too of course. For me she is more than a pooch. The connection between man/woman and dingo could be said to be more spiritual. Those in the know will understand.

Anyway....I'll leave it here before I go too far off O/T.

Fab & Dina.
0
FollowupID: 823243

Follow Up By: Member - KBAD - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 13:07

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 13:07
Dingo's are not an introduced species that is a convenient line used to justify listing it a a "feral" so it can be targeted with baiting or control methods. We are deciding now in this country what animals will or will not be exterminated mainly driven by the almighty dollar. Dollars in the pockets of farmers by minimising stock losses by exterminating what could be potential stock predators, deciding on whether we support the loss of a species because we consider it to be "attractive" to our sensibilities like a Numbat, or Quoll or Tasmanian Devil or Dingo or Tasmanian Tiger. People make that decision everyday people just like us because we support or not Government decisions. I have no problem living with majority rule, but i do have a problem with bending the truth to suit outcomes, and while i am about it the Recommendations (yes recommendation only) is five baits per square Kilometre they also recommend burying them and marking them, which i have never seen done.
1
FollowupID: 823249

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 09:06

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 09:06
Dingoes enjoy harmonica music.

0
FollowupID: 823293

Follow Up By: Member - Fab72 (Paradise SA) - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 20:11

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 20:11
They sing really well to it don't they Bantam....hehe.
0
FollowupID: 823332

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 21:41

Sunday, Sep 07, 2014 at 21:41
AND they can carry a tune.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 823338

Reply By: Member - john y - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 19:40

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 19:40
The argument that native wildlife is intiminated by domestic dogs is just plain wrong. I live on a property in the Victorian high country bordered by a national park. On my property I am living with koalas,wombats kangaroos,wallabies possums and deer and I own a dog. I also have frequent visitors who regularly visit and also bring their dogs large and small. the local native animals have no issue with the fact that these domestic dogs wee and poop around the property, they still exist all around with their young.
I believe that the answer to allowing people visiting national parks with domestic dogs may lay in making prospective visitors pay a bond prior to entering a national park with a dog. should the conditions governing the behaviour of the animal be broken the bond is forfeited and the visitor ejected.
I will go anywhere as long as it's forward

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 538607

Reply By: Tony H15 - Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 21:27

Thursday, Sep 04, 2014 at 21:27
Unfortunately, the majority of people do not understand dogs and place too much trust in them. Despite domestication for thousands of years, dogs still retain all of their natural instincts, including Grandmas little Chihuahua. Grandmas Chihuahua is just as capable of attacking anything it takes a fancy to as a wolf is.
Responsible owners are unfortunately in the minority. No dog should be allowed to wander at will, off lead, in a public space - not everybody likes dogs, not all dogs like other dogs - it's about respecting others rights.
By now you're probably thinking this fellow doesn't like dogs, quite the contrary: there has never been a period in my life when I did not have a dog in my house, matter of fact, every day I went to work, for the majority of my working life, I went to work to train and work with dogs, including periods where I supervised, instructed, fed, cleaned and medicated them. I love dogs above all else - I detest irresponsible owners who allow their dogs unfettered access to whatever they please...

The dog is an innocent - the fault always lies squarely with the owner!
AnswerID: 538614

Reply By: Iza B - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:12
Feral animals in NPs and domestic dogs in NPs are independent issues. One has no influence on the other and any argument that because there are feral animals in NPs makes it alright to have dogs in a NP, is just muddled thinking.

Iza
AnswerID: 538628

Reply By: Tony H15 - Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 21:17

Friday, Sep 05, 2014 at 21:17
A few years ago i was camped in a caravan park at Aldinga Beach, with us we had Dennis our 3.5 kg dog. Now Dennis doesn't like other dogs, snapping at them if they come near. One particular day the chap next to us took his 35kg G/S dog for a walk - off lead. Dennis was tied up to a tent peg in our camp and of course the G/S, upon spotting Dennis, came over to investigate. Dennis snapped at him of course, whereupon the G/S set upon Dennis, had I not intervened Dennis would have been torn apart.

The G/S's owner stood there watching as it unfolded, not once calling his dog off. I kicked the dog, and chased it from my camp. the owner objected to my kicking his dog and continued on his way, his dog still off lead, running through other camps peeing as his went . I caught up to him and advised him to put his dog on lead and restrict it to his campsite. The chap argued the point and couldn't understand that I didn't want his dog in my campsite, he figured as Dennis started the fight his dog was perfectly withing his rights to return the attack. He continued walking his dog around off lead so I advised the park manager and we didn't see the dog again.

Sadly, this isn't abnormal for dog owners, many times I have been forced to fend of dogs wanting to get at Dennis. My wife has been bitten twice in dog free areas on Aldinga beach, in both cases the dogs were off lead and their owners many metres away. We have both been accosted by dogs in the Aldinga scrub, a wildlife refuge and prohibited area for dogs, their owners oblivious to the dogs antics.

I think it about time councils cancel dog registrations and implement owner registration and training.
AnswerID: 538677

Reply By: Shaker - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 19:53

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 19:53
Some other things to blame on dogs:

Leaving bags of rubbish at camp sites
Washing & showering near rivers
Running generators
Hiding dirty nappies behind trees
Ruining tracks with highly modified 4WDs
Cutting down trees
Leaving camp fires unattended
Playing loud music
Travelling on closed tracks
Throwing glass in the fire

No wonder they are not allowed in National Parks!

AnswerID: 538701

Follow Up By: Tony H15 - Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 21:41

Saturday, Sep 06, 2014 at 21:41
Like I said before: dogs are the innocents, it's never the dog at fault, the blame always lies squarely with the owner.
1
FollowupID: 823276

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)