Menindee Lakes and the wool shed
Submitted: Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 20:27
ThreadID:
83044
Views:
3159
Replies:
3
FollowUps:
4
This Thread has been Archived
bluefly
In either 2001 or 2002 we visited
Menindee lakes and came across an old wool shed that had obviously been looked after by the locals and National Parks people.
It brought back many memories and I could have stayed there for hours. However the girls weren’t all that interested, so we moved on to the banks of the Darling for three days (yes, the
water was running).
I’m going back there next year but can’t find any reference to the wool shed on the web. I’ve also tried Google maps, but without a title it’s hard to find.
Any help you can provide would be good, even if it’s just a name.
In addition to that I’m also looking at taking a small dog into the National
Park.
Before anyone gets hysterical, this will only occur if the Rangers see any merit in it, and small dogs under control.
I’ll let you know how it goes.
Cheers
Reply By: Member - Heather G (NSW) - Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 20:47
Reply By: the_fitzroys - Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 22:02
Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 22:02
I can almost guarantee you that the rangers will not see any merit in bringing a small dog into the
park. It's not about whether the dog is under control. It's more about the effect the scent of the dog has on wildlife. Some species will abandon their
young when they scent a dog. I sure the NSW NP office has a PDF somewhere on their website about all the reasons why they ban dogs.
Lou
AnswerID:
438820
Follow Up By: bluefly - Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 23:18
Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 23:18
Lou
You may be right or dead wrong. Just because National Parks or other organizations have a view on this doesn’t mean its right.
In fact, to a certain degree, I think the real truth is otherwise, and lacks merit or logic. Certainty a small dog has a scent, but to conclude this would have an effect on wildlife is marginal to say the least.
In some instances I’ve camped in the High Country and found wild Wallaby’s entering the
camp site and lying beside the fire with the dog. On another occasion a Wombat was snoring its head off next morning.
I think the days are coming, whereby we need to question the practises of Government, and relate more to common sense.
Might be wrong.....but have a good break.
Cheers
FollowupID:
710618
Follow Up By: the_fitzroys - Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:01
Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:01
Bluefly,
My answer was simple. You brought up the subject of whether the
ranger may have a view on the presence of a small dog and I merely pointed out that he would and that view would probably be negative. A lot of parks have up signs about why they don't want dogs there and the reason I gave you was one of the primary reasons.
I expect the presence of a dog at Kinchega NP over the holidays may give you a few problems. That is all.
Lou
FollowupID:
710641
Reply By: Member - Wayne D (NSW) - Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 22:57
Monday, Dec 13, 2010 at 22:57
Could also be
the woolshed at Mungo. There is one at the main
camping area and one on
the loop drive. I agree they certainly have a great feel.
The loop at Mungo also takes in the
ruins of the old
homestead. If you are going to do Kinchega you should also do Mungo if you have not been there before, it is
well worth the trip. But the dog will be a problem in NP's
AnswerID:
438826
Follow Up By: Sigmund - Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 at 15:24
Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 at 15:24
Yeah both are worth a visit but the one in Kinchega has more old stuff and interpretive signs in it.
Note that one or two roads in Kinchega have been closed though; be sure to get up to date info when planning.
FollowupID:
710679