Dogs, National Parks and fines

uneekwahn

Don't wish to generalize but, If you compare how most guide dogs behave and are controlled compared to those who are at the other end of the spectrum.
I guess NP view it as far less of a risk with guide dogs.

JMTBW.

Regards

Hi,

I believe the parks are administered at the state level and in Queensland at least I think the legislation is the National Parks & Wildlife act of 1971.

Don't know about the fines.

I think you are drawing a pretty long bow with the argument about seeing eye dogs. For sight impaired folks, I would imagine that the dog provides a way for them to get out and enjoy things which they otherwise couldn't.

I think their dogs are pretty well trained so I don't see them as a major issue for native animals.

Just my 2 bobs worth.

Does it matter who has jurisdiction? Does it matter how much the fine is? Point is it's illegal, so don't do it.
The ban is in place cause too many people let "rover" run around off leash. This leads to native species being hunted/killed.
Guide dogs are allowed cause they are always on leash and are also very highly trained and obedient animals, not likely to stray and chase anything.

National parks are looked after by the states, not commonwealth.

And no, I DON'T think it's discriminatory to only allow guide dogs.

Hello - I find it hard to believe that people don't understand that pets have no place in national parks. It is apparent that some people just see them as areas of bush within which they should be allowed to do what ever takes their fancy. These areas are created principally for the preservation of native fauna and flora and/or significant natural features. Obviously there has to be a compromise between allowing access for people to enjoy and study these areas while still ensuring they maintain their natural values.

The comprise has to be controlled to ensure long term viability of parks. Management plans are therefore created and rules/restrictions put in place. Not allowing dogs is just one small part of reserve management and probably only effects a small percentage of individuals that visit parks each year. People who like traveling with dogs obviously see it as a significant issue especially when they know their dog is well behaved. The reason for allowing some dogs into national parks (i.e. guide dogs) is obvious. It is interesting that it could be considered "almost discrimination". There are many examples of this type of "almost discrimination" - I doubt if anyone would dare promote such a view like this with a group of visually impaired people...though on second thoughts a few self indulgent people who use this forum spring to mind.

Cheers
Greg

As usual a minority ruin it for all, most folk do the right thing but there are a few hillbilly's out there who dont know what the right thing is and if they did still wouldn't care and do it anyway, lost count of the times we missed out cause we have a dog (jack russel) but it's a fact as long as we have ignoramises, we'll pay for them,
regards,
Dave

not sure if youve noticed but guide dogs are usually atached to their owner where as the sort of people who think its ok to bring their dog into a national park are also the sort who couldnt give a stuff about any of the regulations.
heres definitly 2 things national parks dont need dogs and kids on pee wee 50s/quads

I was planning on crossing the Simpson Desert with a dog sled pulled with ten German Shepherds as a back up for the Spanish Extreme Cyclist.
I guess I'll have to pass on that adventure now.
Hmmm, how hard is it to train dingo's?
Seriously, I think most dog owners are responsible enough to look after their doggies, about as responsible as travellers in picking up all their rubbish when visiting pristine areas. Yet rubbish is left everywhere.
I guess there are different levels of responsibility, and why take the chance.
Just keep the dogs away from the parks please.
Cheers

Allowing people to look after pets unregulated in parks is a bit like allowing big business to run banks without regulation. While most people are responsible with dogs there are those who seem to think it cute if the dog poos on the grassed strip or in the park. Some years ago there was a new housing development above the old Williamstown firing range which used to be a wonderful nesting site for all kinds of birds. A fence was put in between the new housing and the bird `sanctuary' with signs saying, `No Dogs.'
Dogs dont' read and neither do some owners. The bird nesting is long gone as they will be in all the wilderness and national parks if regulations aren't kept to limit the damage.
It'd be nice if we were all perfect but as far as I can see I am the only one.
Harry

NATIONAL PARKS Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet here we are in a national park where Dogs are allowed.

What is the first thing we see....... Dog running loose next to sign saying Dogs allowed on lead at all times.

Big Al
on the great ocean road

In a world now where you cant smoke in pubs /clubs,must respect peoples religon,sexual preferences,race,no discrimination at all to anyone,anytime,anywhere,sections/areas have to be set aside/fenced off/constructed everywhere you go to cater for all types of people and all types of need in all types of situations, NPWS cant accomodate a traveller in some way wanting to explore this great country of ours, sleep out under the stars and take his best mate along.I travel everywhere with my dog and would not have it any other way,i also keep her under control and clean up after her.

Australia's Disability Discrimination Act covers these types of issues and you will find that the relative National Park administration in each State is goverend by this Act.

That is to say that it isn't necessarily the National Parks that makes the decision, they appear to be bound by this legislation.

As to the issue at hand....I guess the Disability Discrimination Act was brought in to cover these exact issues. I guess what it is saying is that able bodied people are not dependent on a guide dog to visit a National Park, blind people are. Therefore it is discriminating if they are denied access because of their dependence on a guide dog....

That's the interpreation...I don't want to get caught up in the argument or debate!

Things change with time.

The question was about WA.

Back when i worked for CALM (now DEC) some 20 years ago, the Nat parks dog rules were part of the National parks act of about 1957 or somesuch - i.e very old and in many vases outdated.

At times parliament passes updated legisltaion to amend shortcommings discovered by Public Servants such as myself who were administering the act.

That would then amend the act (it would then be the Nat Parks act of 1957 as amended 1975 or whatever).

Really speaking you need to look at a CURRENT copy of the act.

Back when i was enfrcing that (and other) acts (Nat parks, Wildlfife Act, CALM Act, Swan River Trust act etc etc) the particular nat parks one was one of the oldest, and most in need of amendement.

In particular - there was a problem with the Dogs in NP section.

It was illegal to have a dog in a NP. We were under instruction not to prosecute this section of the act but to use an educational approach - hand out a dogs in NP "brochure to anyone caught with a dog on NP - and ask them to leave.

The reason we didn't fine or prosecute was - the act was very poorly drafted originally - it defined having a Dog in a NP as being illegal, but forgot to include ANY form of penalty.

Effectively this means - that in the event we prosecuted, and it got to court - the Judge can ONLY rule on whats written in the act (not the regulations - they are not legaly binding), and because there was no provision of fine or penalty (e.g. jail) it meant that basically only a conviction could be recorded against the persons name and court costs awarded against them.

The Dept didn;t want everyone to KNOW this by the results getting published in th epaper or they couldn't continue to bluff everyone to keep dogs out, so we werent allowed to fine or issue infringements - only a warning!

I havent heard of that At being upgraded butI've been out of it for 20 years now so who knows maybe it has.

If the act has been amended by parliament since - well now their could be a fine.

Even with that said - you need to remember this is a court of petty sessions offence - just a judge - no jury and no "criminal conviction" against your name - its the same as paying a speeding or parking fine - it will NOT give you a criminal offence/ criminal record.

Criminal offences are those that carry jail terms of over 1 years incarceration.

So - the whole deal of dogs in NP's is really a storm in a tea cup IMHO.

I well recall - the local APB guy shooting a couple dingo pups (native fauna) in the DeEntrecasteaux NP....because the neighboring cattle farmers were claiminng the Dingoes were killing calves....

Which act (APB) takesprecedence over the other - usually it states in the preamble to the act which acts it;s takes precdense over, and such would be the case with discrimination act and guide dogs In NP's.

The Fed Discrimination act MAY have sime preamble that says this at takes precedence over XYZ federal acts ad all state legislature acts or whatever.

Really only a lawyer would know the answers.

If you want to take a Dog into a NP in Wa I'd et a copy of the latest version of the NP Act first.

Regulations are departmental rules on how a legal act shall be enforced / admiistered - they are not a law and NOT something that can be used in a court of law - so while the NP regs might make all kinds of rules about such parks and dogs etc - that doesnt mean it's "legal" to do so, when it comes to dfense at a court of law.

Personally I know from experience all ofthe acts I was qualified to enforce had loopholes you could drive a greyhound bus thru (deliberate dog pun!)

I don't personally see the big deal with Dogs in NP's...

E.g.

Is it "Illegal" for an indigenous person from say Fitzroy crossing to have a "dog" with him on tribal lands within the Geiki Gorge NP if that "Dog" is all (or part > 75%) Dingo?

Is the Indigenous persons dog a native animal or a dog - and is a NP ranger sufficiently qualified in zoolology to be able to tell the difference without resorting to DNA testing?.

Is it racial discrimination to pick on him and his dingo dog?

Is his Dingo Illegal under the APB act?

Which act takes precedence?

Frankly it's a mess and if enough people don't agree with the Dogs in NP, ad deliberately disobey it - then it will become unenforceable, and eventually the pollies will change the act one way or another to remove any ambiguity.

We are only liable to the laws we agree to be enfirced on as a community on the whole.

Its about who wins - the pro dog people or the anti dog people.

The MAIN reason dogs are discouraged in NP'sis necause they have a habit of kicking theiur legs on neighboring campers tents eskys etc and the ranger doesnt want to have to break up a fight between campers over a stupid dog and get hurt doing so - he has better things to do with his time (usually).

Cheers