National Parks don't want us?

Yeah Jo, you have turned old fashioned into an artform with that old car your running around in at the moment.

Bware,
That sounds like a nice part of the world you found the other day, would it suit for an o/night stop??

Regards to you all, Trevor.

Ahh yes that old Blizzard..... and imagine how much money we'd probably all be saving ourselves if we got around in an old car like that and enjoyed it for what it was instead of all our big toys!!!!! If I had my way, give me something like that and Mark can have the paj!!!!!!!! (But alas, I was told no....ohhhhhh but hang on he still has to pay pennance to me.... a Yes answer would make those brownie points be all paid out all in one go!!!!!)

Cheers
Jo

Jo, that is exactly what we do with the phones; the last thing I want is to get a call from work 'cause they're short staffed. And that's exactly right about modern life taking up way too much of our time.

Trevor, it would be an ideal overnighter. According to the NP website it doesn't say camping is allowed but it doesn't it isn't allowed either ;-)). No probs if you want directions.

Regards, Brian

And I'm sure if you missed seeing a loved one for the last time because the hospital or a family member couldn't get through to you would make it all worth while.

I do periodically check the phone in case of an emergency message, but generally there is no phone reception anyway. It is work and just general calls that I don't want when we go away to be by ourselves. We don't have much in the way of family ourselves and out of what we do have if anyone is going to die out of them it is Mark first anyway with his disease and that being the case I would already be with him!
I take it that you have had a bad experience of something like what you wrote happening?

Cheers
Jo

Brian, re that spot. I wonder if the fact that it didn't have Maccas and a coke machine might be the reason for them not listing it ? If you list somewhere that you don't have the resources to maintain, and the screaming hoards arrive, then you have to divert resources. So you then have to build facilities and charge visitors. In no time at all you have to employ more staff. But that means you need more money and it isn't there.
The last time I went to a favourite overnighter, there was a regulated camp area, water and toilets, firewood etc. Sounds brilliant doesn't it ?
The place was also overflowing with tourists.
A far cry from the old bush clearing that I enjoyed for short term stress relief.

Yep, I reckon you're right about NP resources. Instead of complaining about NPWS, I should be counting my blessings for finding the spot and have kept quiet about it ;-))

Bware,

Since you've let it slip, does that mean you have to kill us all :))))))))))))))))

Hahaha,
You all better be gettin' your affairs in order.....
Hmmm, alphabetically, by zodiac sign, or age? LOL

Amen :)))

I think it's our birthright to be able to enjoy nature for free and that National Parks should be the means to do this. The fees keep going up and we get less access. I reckon my kids will have to go 'virtual camping' using some fancy gizmo which costs thousands of dollars when they grow up.

So what are you going to do about it guys? Other than whinge on a remote internet forum no one, except the people who basically agree with you, reads?

Mike Harding

I don't know, Mike, that's part of the problem. I write letters but feel that is pointless at the end of the day. Debate here isn't pointless; your comment might be someone's catalyst for action? Feel free to contribute ideas :-)))

Trying to get Aussies to take positive, pre-emptive action is like trying to push water uphill - I'm afraid....

Prove me wrong people - I'd love you to...?

If I mention "Civil Disobedience" on this forum how many will attack me for it?

But what the f...? else do you think will get you what you want...?

God, but am I tired of people who whinge but never act...?

Mike Harding

I wont attack you for mentioning 'civil disobedience'; that would make me a hypocrite ;-)
I may have camped where I am not supposed to (as an example, of course!); the whinging is about being sick of committing an offence while doing something that you don't believe should be an offence.

Hi Cabbageoz,
I generally agree with your reasoning but I don't think an ever-increasing number of laws and rules achieves anything. Rules are only words on paper; they can't stop people from doing the wrong thing, only make them punishable if caught. The idiots will still cut down trees etc even though they are 'not allowed to', drive down tracks that are closed, speed through residential streets and school zones etc. The majority who do the right thing are the ones who live an increasingly restrictive life. I left school quite a few years ago, as I'm sure many others here did; we don't need to be treated like when the teacher says "unless whoever did the wrong thing owns up, the whole class will get detention", but that is effectively how we are treated.

And one of the most destructive things I have seen in the bush was a couple of Police 4wds driving on a perfectly dry forestry road in Tasmania with chains on all 4 wheels. The track did not even warrant 4wd and I knew the area they were travelling through. They would have had no need what so ever to use chains on this track in the middle of Summer........
I have seen Government officials who should be setting an example doing the most attrotious (spelling) acts.

>> Hmmmm ...
>>
>>... what is it that Australians stand for ? Tell me ...
>>
>> .. they accept what happens around them far too easy ... well because there is no alternatives ..
>>
>> not enough are willing to make a protest vote and get new forces into politics .. not enough independents, not enough alternatives ...
>>
>>stop winging ...
>>have fun
>>gmd

_gmd_pps
I totally agree with you.

We are always the same bunch of people doing the political action work during that time the others go to the pub talking about it but do nothing.

The thinking , is "have an other one (scooner) and it'll go away.

No one in Australia is allowed to talk about religion or politic.

Who said that? What bad manners when your fun park are being controlled from overseas.

Every time I see a ranger from the National Park and wild Life I talk to him and during the conversation I tell him the good things and the bad things.

One of the bad things I tell him is about countries like USA and UK telling me how to have fun in my own National Park?
To tell me who I should vote for and so?
What back burning policies I should adopt?
What RV should I use?
How I should admire the USA and UK...?
The USA and UK destroyed their own backyard, now they are telling us how to preserve our own parks..!

CLICK on this web page

Do you know what? the ranger agrees with me.

The "big boys " form the NP and WL are the one selling Australia.
One for me one for them....

The rangers of the NP & WL are only the foot soldiers.

Say no more...

John

Too true.
I have seen it many times; two people (perhaps a couple or maybe good friends) at a table in a cafe or restaurant and one of them spends the whole time on their phone to someone else, and generally talking louder than anyone else in the premises. That is just plain RUDE. And when they talk that loud you can tell it isn't an 'important business call' which will cause the demise of the stockmarket if not answered.

I very much agree with your post ..
well said and quite true ... the more 4WD abuse we will see the worse it will get ..
a bit like the hoones in the city create the pressure for more speed limit ...
gmd

I don't think many will dispute that behaviour by some is one of the main causes of closures, but I think there's more than 'some' examples of inappropriate access restrictions. In Nthn NSW ALL tracks are closed except for the road into the park and day/camping area. If there's anything else of interest in the park you will have to walk which penalises anyone not able-bodied, with young kids etc. Or carry a canoe for 'x' kms along a locked track to a creek. Many of these locked tracks go somewhere like a lookout for instance.

Go 4wding somewhere else? The only other places are state forests; there used to be lots of them up here, now they're all National Parks. The ones that aren't will be soon.

Hi,
Precisely...
And how come State Forests can provide basic facilities AND firewood for free??.......
I don't see State Forest camp-sites perpetually vandalized as some people would imply
And National Park fees keep going up and up..

I can see a lot of "empire building" going on.

Cheers

hl, your point hasn't been countered yet; I think that makes it a very good point :-))))

Hi Mark,
It's not all about 4wd access; no fires (who wants to go camping in Winter if you can't sit around a fire?), fees - $7 per day vehicle fee, $8.50 per person camping fee( family of four = $41 per night/$410 for ten days to go camping?!!!) but I suppose outrageous costs keep away the 'undesireables' like us low income earners so that 30somethingpeople with disposable incomes can enjoy their hi-tech toys without my kids annoying them LOL

Bware, some good points (and yes, I'm a 40-something). I'm not saying the National Park strategies are all sweetness and light, and you may have noticed I have indicated I am not happy with many of their access decisions. There is no doubt a culture of disincentive has settled in. I can, however understand some of the reaction. This weekend I was at the Coorong National Park. Despite signs indicating "No Pets" about half the campers had their dogs with them.Some bike riders were cutting up the vegetated dune faces and I overheard one person saying they were'nt paying camping fees, they never check anyway!

Still there is a point where the fees and the regulations require some questioning. I get to hear the story from a number of sides and sometimes the decisions are not simple. I guess I'm saying I can agree with your perspective on some issues, but the access whinges I keep hearing about are, in my opinion, mostly a croc!

Fires in National Parks, incidentally will become increasingly rare. In desert areas this can't happen soon enough! I get sick of seeing pictures of idiots crossing the Simpson having a blazing fire ready at five in the evening! The deserts are the least able area to support burning the vegetation! Bushwalkers have had to get used to many camps being fire-free. I think in some circumstances car-campers will have to. I don't agree with no-fire regulations in all situations however.

As for your being an "undesireable", it has nothing to do with being younger, or having kids. As for being from NSW however.....

Cheers,

Mark

Now I'll buy rules _if_ they have a sensible pupose:

>Despite signs indicating "No Pets" about half the campers had
>their dogs with them

If we ignore the signs - why do you think dogs should not have been allowed?

Mike Harding

Just to clarify, Mike; you're asking that if people bring their dogs regardless of the signs, what is the point of the rules?
That is the same point I was trying to illustrate further up in followup ID 455915.

Firstly, are you suggesting there is no reason to dissallow dogs? If so (I'm not sure you are) that's just plain ignorance. You get the "my dog's okay" type who always suggest their particular pet does no damage.They remind me of suburban cat owners who insist their moggie doesn't kill wildlife. CRAP. Then the one most people are unaware of. Camping areas tend to cluster native wildlife (foraging etc.) on a fairly consistent basis. Bringing dogs into these areas not only increases the risk of the dogs doing damage but far more importantly the smell attracts foxes. This in turn means foxes tend to congregate more in areas where the native animals do. Therefore: greater impact by foxes. Add to this, I (and most others) don't go to National Parks to share them with your pets and ...DOGS DON'T BELONG IN NATIONAL PARKS!!

As to the point about not having rules because most ignore them, this is an issue for NPs due to funding and geographic remoteness. I feel the answer is not to ignore it (this just means more damage and eventualy closure) but to A) create more funding (difficult) for more rangers; B) start a voluntary ranger scheme (as occurs in Tassie) to operate in holiday and peak use times, to educate users (I believe most people really don't want to do the wrong thing, they just don't understand or haven't been given enough info, see point about foxes above); C) If many figure it's worth the risk ignoring the signs then up the ante- put bigger signs at entry points (so there are no excuses) and introduce MUCH bigger fines and entry bans (say $500 and 12 months banned from National Parks in the state). For many they will still think the chance of getting caught is low, but the risk if they do may not be worth it. For the rest, make the fines much, much bigger for a second offence.

Cheers,

Mark

Well.... that is quite a statement. Ok, there are many Nat Parks where it is not desirable to have dogs, but, surely... since just about everyting is a National Park or proposed to be soon by now, there most be SOME places that are ok for dogs.
That blanket "YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO DO THIS" is what typifies much of what Nat Parks are all about these days.
And if NP are so worried about all the wood getting picked up and burned at campsites, why don't they PROVIDE some for the campers just like State Forests do. NP charge enough for access.
Would it not be easier to round up all the foxes, now that you know what attracts them?
Cheers

Agreed hl. I though Mark's response was pretty weak too.

My post was poorly worded, by "If we ignore the signs", I meant that the simple presence of the signs is not a sufficient reason for a blanket rule. ie. If I errect a sign saying "Everyone who reads this must donate $10 to Mike Harding" will you be requesting an address to send the cheque to?

Mike Harding

I'm sorry you find "my argument" (it isn't mine) weak. It's based upon solid research from three Australian states as well as overseas evidence. Whereas your perspective is based upon....your opinion? It's a pity you don't consider this issue important, I assure you Park Managers do. But supported facts aside (who needs them, hey?) I'm surprised anyone would think it reasonable to have a dog in an area designated for native conservation. It reminds me of a guy I met cutting firewood with a chainsaw in a national park. When I pointed out it was prohibited he replied he thought that's what the forests were for! And no, hl, I don't believe there are ANY National Parks where dogs would be welcomed. Surely there are enough other places to take your dog for a run. I don't buy the argument that you need to take your dog with you because it would be left alone at home. If you choose to have a pet it is your responsibility to take care of it within the limitations of the prevailing regulations. There is no God-given right to access places in the manner of your choosing. Just as you think you should be able to take your dog (apologies if you were not referring to yourself) I think you shouldn't. The difference is, my perspective is the same as that of the regulations. And we're both Park users.

Don't get me wrong guys, I am agreeing that a culture of restriction over management is prevailing and I personnaly don't find that healthy. I do however hear these issues from a number of perspectives (it's not just us vs them) and the answers are not always simple. Sometimes they are, though. In an environment of diminishing funding it is easier for managers to simply close an area off or ban an activity than fund the regulation and policing of allowing it to continue.

Let me put my point simply. On the weekend at the Coorong there were idiots with dogs when it was clearly signposted "No Pets". There were idiots with unlicensed dirt bikes riding on prohibited areas. I'm a manger with four rangers to cover a huge area with many conflicting users and outcomes. Do I spend more of my limited funding to police theese idiots or do I simply close an area off? It gets those pesky 4WDers upset but appeases the other idiots who scream at me to ban everything. And hey, it costs less and makes me look good to my managers.

So I sincerly believe I should (and do) notify any rangers I see of anyone breeching regulations. Why? I think I am helping to maintain access and activity usage in areas which may otherwise be restricted. If you are not happy with the closures don't blame me. Balme your pollie (they ultimately fund the system, with our money) and blame every single knob who thinks it's their right to do as they please, stuff the rules.

(Ain't disagreeing fun, I could be doing housework right now!)

Cheers,

Mark

>I'm a manger with four rangers

>And hey, it costs less and makes me look good to my managers.

Now how did I guess there was a vested interest there?

btw if you're going to site "research" to argue against my "opinions" then please provide references to your research otherwise, for all we know, they're just your "opinions" too.

Mike Harding

Actually Mike, it was a hypothetical argument (I sell toilets!). This attitude and response is from conversations I've had with those who ARE managers. And as I've said: I don't necessarilly agree with them!

As for the references, it's been a while since I studied, but I'll try and search them out. If you want more clarification simply ask National Parks why they don't want dogs. I'm pretty sure they can give you the details immediately.

There's no vested interest, I just hear these things from more than one "vested interest's" perspective (if you're a user, you also have a vested interest).

Let me say again, I AGREE with much of what's been said. I think Bware had some very good points to make. I just think we are our own worse enemies sometimes.

BTW, there are really only four rangers to cover the area from the SA border up to the Murray Mouth. No wonder they can't get around to everywhere.

Cheers,

Mark

>I just think we are our own worse enemies sometimes.

I'll agree with that - I think most of us would - but that is not sufficient reason to permit all these empire builders in the various government departments to control us at their behest. Then again... what the bloody hell else is anyone supposed to do with a degree in "Environmental Management" or similar.

When did you ever hear the "Rule Makers" or "Power Wielders" say; "Well... I don't think we need those rules/laws anymore so let's get rid of them".

These people don't need any encouragement from us....

Mike Harding

PS. I camped at various spots in the Snowy River NP with my dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel) a coupe of years ago - the park still seems to be intact?

Mike, it's a pity we disagree on this issue, we probably agree on more than we don't. I do think you may be right about "empire builders" in higher echelons of government but my experience has been most on the ground managers are simply doing the best they can with few resources and abundant (and growing) pressures from a burgeoning array of "vested interest" groups.

Why the need to put down people who have studied "Environmental Management"? Most of those I know are genuine, caring individuals who have less self-interest involved than most of the pressure groups who condemn them.

I am sorry I didn't make my "hypothetical" approach clearer, I just wanted you to think about why managers would want to make some of the decisions which irk you.

As for taking your dog in national parks, no, they won't fall down. They will I believe be poorer for your behaviour, but I guess we're going to have to continue to disagree over this. If I see you with your dog in a National Park I WILL report you, because I truely believe you are creating conditions which give managers the excuse and opportunity to further restrict all our activities. Sorry.

This argument is getting old.

Cheers,

Mark

Hi,
There lies the problem... Some of our National Parks are as big as small countries....
Surely some space there could be set aside for people with other interests rather than just bushwalking and drinking beer.
The Americans have National Park areas where people can bring their dogs. So, I can't see why it can't be done here. Not that I am hell bent on taking ours, but there should be places where you can. As for the hooligans you mentioned, well, they don't give a damn now about rules, so what's the difference. Do you want to lock it up for all, just because of some hoons?
We own the National Parks... why should we have to pay big $ to to stay there. As in the post above, $40.00 a night for a small family is just way over the top.
Cheers

hl, like I said, this arguments getting old.I wasn't intending to post to it again (and now there's another post regarding dogs and National Parks!) but you raised a good point, and I couldn't resist responding in agreement. I will rectify my statement that dogs should be kept out of all NP's, just the vast majority. You're surely right though, if we have areas in some parks set aside for those with generators (another thing I believe should be left out of most NP areas), perhaps we could have some areas set up where dogs are allowed there (and there only, herein lies the management problem).

Good point, as I said before you tend to raise some! As for fees, yup no argument there. Get governments to properly fund what is, after all, a poor vote getter and you may see better access at a reasonable price.

Cheers,

Mark

Right on, brother :-)))))