Gibb River Road with canine companion

Submitted: Thursday, Jan 22, 2009 at 21:44
ThreadID: 65340 Views:3305 Replies:7 FollowUps:23
This Thread has been Archived
Hey there, I'm thinking about travelling the gibb river road after this years wet season, with my dog. I know alot of that area is off limits to dogs being national parks etc. Does any one have any idea if there are any stop over areas that allow you to camp with a dog, or if there are any restrictions for the area itself that would prevent me taking him?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Willem - Thursday, Jan 22, 2009 at 22:52

Thursday, Jan 22, 2009 at 22:52
Two things spring to mind that you need to consider when travelling with your mate in tow.

In the Tropical areas dogs are susceptible to heartworm and ticks

Western Australia is the 1080 poison bait state of Australia

Buy a book Bushcamping with Dogs from this site. It will give you places where you can take your dog in the Kimberley region


Cheers
AnswerID: 345575

Reply By: Member - cuffs (SA) - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 00:27

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 00:27
Just do it if you get cought pay the fine, I have traveled 20 years and been told by Pk rangers , YOU CANT TAKE A DOG still awaiting frst fine.
AnswerID: 345585

Follow Up By: Boobook2 - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 06:36

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 06:36
You are an incosiderate fool.

Stuff the native animals and diseases hey?



0
FollowupID: 613548

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:25

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:25
And do you also light camp fires when there is a fire ban ?
0
FollowupID: 613550

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:28

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:28
I hope you are joking. I suspect that you are not. I'll bet you would be one of the first to rant and rave about"Greenies" wanting some areas closed off completely.
0
FollowupID: 613551

Follow Up By: Boobook2 - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:34

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:34
Probably been leaving rubbish and dog shyt after him for 20 years with no fine too. Ahhh well who gives a damm about the bush or other people. He is ok and leaves a trail of disaster after him.
0
FollowupID: 613563

Follow Up By: Boobook2 - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:40

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:40
From Cuffs profile he is a comittee member and the trip co-ordinator of the High Range FWD club of SA. I hope the club doesn't endorse such attitudes and treatment of National Parks.

0
FollowupID: 613567

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 15:00

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 15:00
To cuffs, the President of the High Range 4WD Club of SA Inc. , may I quote from your club's homepage:

" All-wheel drive club established for all AWD & 4WD vehicles to encourage friendship, safe off-roading, participation and environmental awareness. Day & weekend trips. Recreational off-roading for everyone!
::
::
" The objectives of the club are to establish safe four wheel driving techniques for members, encourage participation, create environmental awareness and protection.

Source: High Range 4WD Club of SA Inc.

There is a reason for these rules, not to allow dogs into national parks and nature reserves, something you are supposed to encourage your club members to abide by.

Cheers Steve.
0
FollowupID: 613617

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:01

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:01
I see that they also have a draft code of ethics on their web site
Part of which states;


"• Keep to the laws and regulations on recreation vehicles. They change from state to state.

• Respect our wildlife. Stop and look, but never disturb or chase animals. It can affect their survival.

• Keep to restrictions on use of public land. Respect national parks and other conservation areas.

This code is valuable only if you observe it."


Hmmmm, but I guess as it says on the web site the above is only a draft !


.
0
FollowupID: 613629

Follow Up By: stephen looking - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:03

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:03
Come on really what damage does a controlled family pet do in a national park, If you remember to take into account all of the other introduced animals that may be in the area, including the human kind.

I can think of far worse enviromantal impact caused by cars (and yes i do drive my car into all sorts of enviroments)

I will also continue to take my companion into areas that the law makers have decided that i cant.


Regards..........Stephen.
0
FollowupID: 613630

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:13

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:13
Hi Stepen, Try telling that sort of tale to an agriculture inspector when taking fruit into an exclusion zone !

If you really do not know the answer to your question then you need to learn why the rules were made in the first place. I would suggest that you get hold of a ranger at a national park and ask them the same question they will be able to tell you far better then I can.

.
0
FollowupID: 613631

Follow Up By: stephen looking - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:56

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:56
Hi Kiwi, Taking dogs into a national park where this started i believe is different to transporting fruit. And no i don't transport fruit into areas that are exclusion zones, for the obvious reasons.

Can you also give me your point of view as to why these laws where introduced, from the numerious parks officers in various states that i have talked to no one can give me a reason why a controlled introduced species can not enter the park but the wild horses, pigs, cows, buffalo, camel, dogs, cats, cane tode, birds, can be in these areas with no goverment intervention.
The only answer that was given by most in authority was the human factor in controlling the dogs, fair point as most people cant control there kids lets ban them.

Kiwi i am glad you have your point of view, i respect that, but i have never been given a firm reason as to why i cant go to these places with my dog.

Also if a dog is used as a aid animal they are allowed to enter.

Regards...........Stephen.



0
FollowupID: 613636

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 19:36

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 19:36
Stephen the reason I suggest you talk to a ranger is that the reasons may well vary from park to park. In some areas ticks etc can transfer blood born parasites. In other areas rare ground living animals / birds may be at risk. Dog poo may contain the worm stage of diseases like hydatids or similar parasites that can get into sheep, goats, cattle or even dingoes that then spread them on to other animals nearby. I do understand your point about a lot of the local animals MAY already have some of these parasites etc. but that does not excuse the inadvertent spreading over large areas by the travelling public and their domestic animals. I would also point out that your animal could pick up ticks that carry a blood disease in one area and drop those ticks a thousand km away two days latter in an area that does not already have that disease. I don't really think the problem is very much different then transporting fruit through a prohibited area.

.
0
FollowupID: 613648

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:01

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:01
A classic case of "ignorance is bliss".

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: 613650

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:45

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:45
What a great bunch of responses .......

Actually its quite similiar to a bunch of greenies hissing and spitting at a touring vehicle just because it has 4x4 stickers on it.

Anybody considered that the animal maybe tethered and cared for / cleaned up after correctly by the owner.

Ticks .... and like kids will notice immediately that they have one ... other transferrable items / parasites can be on your vehicle ... how many of the above 'no dog brigade' sterilise their vehicles between areas ... ?????? .... A jerrycan of water filled up at one waterhole and emptied somewhere else ..... nobody ever done that I bet ????

Native animals ... pet on a leash .... big deal. A good travelling dog wont even be a barker without reason ... and the the good ones Ive been fortunate enough to have camped nearby "illegallly" in Nat Pks have been quieter than a bunch of screaming kids or slamming caravan doors or generators or doof doof music etc.

Loudest one I ever heard was one growling at a bunch of feral pigs wandering through a Torrington Rec Area campsite. ... oops ... now a Conservation Area ... so the dogs can be kept out. Place has been gutted for over a 100yrs for mining ... nothing left to conserve. Anything that is left gets turned over by the pigs and goats.

As for the PITA dogs ... not their fault - just their idiot owners.

Fires ... gotta eat ... dont need a bonfire ... handful of sticks and a pint pot is boiled.

Lock your front doors people ... crank up the telly and watch reruns of the Leyland Brothers ... much safer than staying in a diseased Nat Pk and paying to have deadfall land on your gear.
0
FollowupID: 613656

Follow Up By: Boobook2 - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 21:47

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 21:47
Steven Looking ( but not thinking)

Here are some very good reasons.

1) Some diseases are localised and are carried to and from areas by domesticated animals. Many of these can wipe out small and weak populations of native animals.

2)Many animals are territorial and will evacuate an area because of urine and defication of domestic animals.

3)Humans who behave thenselves dispose of their waste properly and bury it. Not many dogs do that.

4)Dogs carry many diseases that are transferable to natives.

And yes you are right, wild dogs etc don't have the intelligence to obey the laws designed to protect the native wildlife. Most humans do. Where do you fit?

You fool
0
FollowupID: 613664

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 22:16

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 22:16
Hi

This has been discussed before, and no doubt will be again. Always happens when someone mentions the word “dog”. Not allowing dogs (and other pets) in some national parks is just a (generally) small part of the overall management plan for an area so it is no surprise to me that some people see it as a rule that is hard to justify.

While some people will disagree, I figure the main purpose of National Parks/conservation areas etc is not as areas for humans and their pet of choice to use. They are for the conservation of natural resources such as landforms, flora and fauna. Allowing access to the public is a compromise between ensuring the existing environment is not compromised while allowing the general public to experience the “great outdoors” (camping, 4WD, Birdwatching, photography, bushwalking etc). Taking your dog camping or for a walk is unfortunately not on the list of outdoor experiences for some areas.

Base on my knowledge/experience, one of the worst places is some beaches (most not in national parks) where dogs running free disturb birds and/or their nests – this is a major management issue for some rare species which breed exclusively/mainly on beaches. No surprise to me that dogs are not allowed in certain areas, as some people aren’t up to speed and can’t be relied upon to make the best decision with respect to managing their pet. That’s why rules are made, and that’s why they are broken, that’s humans for you.

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: 613668

Follow Up By: Willem - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 08:25

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 08:25
Ahh I cannot let this argument die.....hahahahaha!!!

The same people are waffling on about how the environment must be protected against canine diseases etc..... although Big Al seems to be absent this time.

National Parks.

Many National Parks these days(especially in Northern Australia) have been returned to their Aboriginal owners? so that they may act as custodians of the land. The National Parks are then leased back to the relevant State or Federal Authority in charge of parks and the taxpayers foot the bill

Many parks have traditional living areas within their boundaries. Aboriginal people just love to have dogs around them but unlike us 'westerners', who care for their 'pets', aboriginal people tend on the whole to show disregard for the well-being of their pets.

So within the boundaries of these National Parks any number of Camp Dogs exist and they do travel at times with their owners to or through areas of the parks.

At Parrngurr(Cotton Creek) Community, Rudall River NP in WA, I met a dog owner with no less than 35 dogs, all of which looked like they had been fed three weeks prior. The community's dog population was well over 400 according to the Community Manager. I have experience in visiting other communities within National Parks or on the fringe of National Parks with the same circumstances.

So while many aboriginal social commentators like to espouse the view that there is One Law for Whites and Another Law for Aboriginal Peoples within Australia...I say that the same laws apply to these National Parks but in reverse order..

Whereas aboriginal people may keep mangy, flea and tick ridden dogs within the boundaries of National Parks, authoritarian bylaws are promugated to prevent travellers from taking their well cared-for pet companions into the same area. Frankly, this does not make sense.

And then there is the Native Dog....Oh no, the Dingo isn't a Native. It has only been here for 4000 years!!! So it does not carry the same diseases that domestic dogs have?

Although I don't push the issue on a regular basis I will take my dog through a National Park if I think it is defensible. Most of the times I try to avoid National Parks as I hate being herded into cluster camping by numbers no matter what the scenic or cultural attractions are.

Greg:
[While some people will disagree, I figure the main purpose of National Parks/conservation areas etc is not as areas for humans and their pet of choice to use. They are for the conservation of natural resources such as landforms, flora and fauna. Allowing access to the public is a compromise between ensuring the existing environment is not compromised while allowing the general public to experience the “great outdoors” (camping, 4WD, Birdwatching, photography, bushwalking etc). Taking your dog camping or for a walk is unfortunately not on the list of outdoor experiences for some areas].

Ah! but these areas are only for elite humans 'working' in the field of so called science. Letting the general populace view or enjoy these places must really get up their noses and yours.

Meanwhile the gneral populace pays for all of these resources.

Cheers


0
FollowupID: 613692

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:06

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:06
Hi Willem, re comment -

"Ah! but these areas are only for elite humans 'working' in the field of so called science. Letting the general populace view or enjoy these places must really get up their noses and yours. "

Do you mean the 16 year period I worked as an exploration geologist and supervise several drilling programs in national parks looking for minerals with the express purpose of finding and then opening up a mine or now, where I carry out fauna surveys for mining companies and developers who wish to also start mines or clear bush for houses/industry? Got a funny (elite) feeling that I am more of an “up your nose villain” to the greenies/land managers than any dog touting outback tourist as I work for the “dark side”.

Anyway...Main point of my comments was to state what I think is the reason you are not allowed to take dogs into certain areas, as I thought that was the question being asked. Whether these rules are right or wrong, effective or ineffective or serve any real purpose is a totally different, more complex matter for discussion, the answers to which would actually vary from location to location.

Obviously dog owners see it as a significant issue, but from a park management issue, in my opinion, it isn’t (generally speaking, in some areas it is), it’s just one small management action. This is why responsible dog owners get upset over the subject as they can’t understand why their well behave dog is not allowed into a park when it will quiet obviously not add to impacts already occurring such as allowing humans access in the first place. Though outside of environmental impacts, the potential nuisance factor some dogs represent to others present is probably also taken into consideration when excluding them from certain areas. There are far more significant management issues for most parks..but they all add up and must be addressed in some way.

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: 613709

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:12

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:12


0
FollowupID: 613710

Follow Up By: stephen looking - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:03

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:03
bb2, explorer and steve please refrain your negative and demeaning attitudes towards people this is a public forum, we can all have a point of view be it right or wrong.
I don't go out of my way to enter NP or conservation areas with my mate but if i find my self in such areas i will not run to the nearest exit either. When i'm up north and i want to enter Kakadu NP with my mate, easy friends with the traditional owners now this is just plain hypocritical of the law makers.

In most cases the ban on dogs in national parks is a blanket effect because the way the laws where written.

Thank God, Allah or Muhammad that the whole country is not a national park, i agree conservation is a necessity but a different tactic is required.

Regards.......Steve
0
FollowupID: 613712

Follow Up By: Willem - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:16

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:16
Hello Greg

As we are only verbal combantants via this forum I have absolutely no idea what your history is or what you have or have not achieved in your life. So telling me this in the context of this thread is a waste of space. I do not know you from a bar of soap and I do not do I know what you look like. I seem to disagree with some of your points of view though.

That aside, I understand what management issues are in National Parks or areas of significance. I was trying to draw the analogy that it is very simple to exclude certain aspects of entry to an area of significance(easy targets) whilst condoning the existence of the exact aspects within the same area.

Control activities in National Parks to an extent, yes, but please stay away from double standards.

So no White fella dogs in National Parks...then no Blackfella dogs in National Parks!

No further discussion will be entered into so I am giving you the last word...lol

Cheers

0
FollowupID: 613713

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:15

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:15
As anyone of us could arrive in an area with ticks and other critters , pollens and seeds etc from other areas, embedded in clothing, tyre treads, wheel covers, mesh radiator protectors, tent floors, etc .... it just seems a bit hypocritical to me - for any person to settle on a controlled dog as THE offender.

Im left wondering why some individuals dont accept that some people are quite capable of securing their travel companion to the bullbar, or in the vehicle at night, when in a designated, human trampled, vehicle flattened, oil / soap / solvent / bug repellant / sunscreen / hand lotion splattered npws campground and only walk the dog on the npws designated, vehicle polluted roadway to the camping area. ???

There is a big difference between a dog in a vehicle which is a travelling companion ... and the family pet, chucked in the car and taken to a NP because the kids MAY want to play frisbee with it.


Willem ... interesting, valid and experienced points ... but you forgot the fist sized lumps/growths, in your camp dog description. ( wink )

In NSW and other states it has become the norm for european style housing to be provided in town limit residential areas rather than camps - unfair segregation / equal rights and all that stuff ( all quite right in this enlightened age of course ) ... yet many of the older "locals" I have spoken to preferred the days of the camps / missions ...

My point here is that the "locals" still have access to areas within NP boundaries yet their dogs are now mixing in town (except of course where the money has been spent to fence them out) with the same dogs that are banned from NP ... ????? .

In this day and age of crystal clear rules and regulations ... the waters are very muddy indeed .... LOL


Explorer ... As per Willems comment I am all for reasonable care and protection of the landscape ... There are even some areas that I feel should be totally off limits to everyone ...

The issue is that if a responsible dog owner such as a solo traveller etc wants to utilise the same camping areas and roadways as used by people with all the wildlife scaring, noisy, modern, smelly camping accessories ... there should be no problem with that.

Blanket rules about pets ( and other stuff ) just save the govt from metering out punishment to those ( "careless" / "care less" dog owners etc ) who NEED a punishment as a reminder that positive and common sense behaviour is THEIR responsibility ... not too mention attracting the greeny vote.

All those one-eyed conservationists ... please open both eyes so as to discern the difference between "responsible" and "careless" / "care less"

Additionally, any one who has actually travelled around this country "should" have noticed - that the rule blanket has some pretty big tears in it depending on who or what its covering ... If its not satisfactory to dig a hole with a shovel to bury some woofers eggs in a NP ... why are core samples using drill rigs OK .... ??? ( Just a generalisation not a reflection on your work past Explorer )

To appease the sulks and wingers .... I gave up travelling with a dog years ago ... Now the lonely, torchless stroll down the track, enjoying the cool of the evening, settling the dinner before bed hardly seems worth the fuel and time to get to the spot .... sighhhh.
0
FollowupID: 613729

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 13:31

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 13:31
Yeah Willem cut out your "negative and demeaning attitudes towards people". Just kidding. Thanks for the last word – you are very kind. My comments regarding my previous history were to illustrate that it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to be adverse to people enjoying natural areas as you suggested I would be, by the comment "...must really get up their noses and yours". You were lumping me in with the “elite” – whoever they are.

Again I was just stating why I thought the rules regarding dogs were made by those that make the rules, with an example or two. Didn’t think I was being negative or demeaning, though maybe my first comment could be taken as such - that was more out of surprise considering the number of times this subject has been bought up and the fact I find it easy to understand why the rule makers make the rules (rightly or wrongly depending who you talk to) regarding dogs.

Re: Exploration - rules/methods have tightened up a bit but I have found old open drill holes in some areas of the Pilbara - Yes, not good - way worse than a pile of dog poop.

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: 613735

Reply By: Member - Mark - Exmouth WA - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 00:29

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 00:29
Did the Gibb River Road in September last year and took my Staffy and had no problems, did not go to National Parks because of the dog but it was no big deal.

Cheers
Mark
AnswerID: 345586

Reply By: Motherhen - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:04

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:04
We met travellers with (well behaved) dogs on the GRR - but they were limited as to where they could go and where they could camp. We first met them at a station stay, and they had asked ahead about their dogs and convinced station managers the dogs were confined and well behaved. They know there was a lot they missed, but this trip was for fishing. Next time it will be kennels for the dogs so they can go sightseeing. They went to Kalumburu and stayed at Honeymoon Beach. At Drysdale River Station they were allowed to stay at the bush camping site Miners Pool but not at the station homestead camping area. From Drysdale they took a flight to Mitchell Falls as no dogs on the Mitchell Plateau. They also had to miss the gorges and falls of the King Leopold Range area. These are major attractions of the GRR, so you would miss most of the good stuff unless you can put your best friend into kennels.

Motherhen

We miss our dog, but she stays home safe, sound and happy
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 345590

Reply By: Member - John and Val W (ACT) - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:46

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:46
Beware of the ticks. I picked up half a dozen when camped near the Willare Bridge in mid July. Got most of them off over the next 24 hours. But 6 months on the bites are still quite bothersome.

Now I'm not a dog but I wouldn't wish what I have experienced on my best mate.

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

AnswerID: 345613

Reply By: stephen looking - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:13

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 17:13
ImOutaHere, As i have yet to traverse this road i cant recommend anywhere to stay, but from my experance you wont have a problem traveling with your dog. Like others have said 1080 is about and you will need to keep a close eye on him, but that shouldn't stop you taking him along.

Cheers.......Steve.
AnswerID: 345667

Reply By: ImOwtaHere - Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 22:33

Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 22:33
Thanks for all the info guys. It's a shame about the 1080 problem but good to get a heads up. I have had experience with ticks before - nasty things - and so Saxon will be on serious tick prevention by the time we get there. I'm tempted to do as Cuffs says and just go for it, and risk a fine. He will be contained the whole time so won't cause any harm - kennels aren't really an option because he doesn't have a very good rapport with strangers when I'm not there, and I know I'll miss alot of the sites but I figure there will still be more to see than the alternative route to kununrra.
AnswerID: 345689

Follow Up By: Member - cuffs (SA) - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:34

Saturday, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:34
There was no mention of camping in NP’s in my original reply as I don’t, I like my dog to much as I am aware of the baiting programs.

The roads through NP’s are access roads to go from A-B and some times you have to use them it a pity some on this forum have to make personal attacks.

ImOwtaHere have a good trip.




0
FollowupID: 613747

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)