last time we were there goonowigal was a national park, if it had changed since then...so be it...Phurphy's???? Who creates the most damage in national parks??? Human beings!!!!, but I will not argue what I said as I do have my fact straight, and anyway...what is the difference between state forest, national parks and state conservation area's. They all look the same and consist of the same native wildlife...50% allow dogs and 50% don't, why restrict in one and not the other ???? Just beauracratic gobbledygook.... what about Dalrymple National park...its there for the human heritage, due to the historic town of Basalt, Now known as Dalrymple. It's was not named NP due to the animals that reside it it...What about Millstream Falls National Park..Named NP due to its army history and artifacts....None of the above 2 allow dogs...And Hill End in NSW which is managed by National Parks and allows Dogs??? The one in Victoria..we are unsure on the name now am currently doing a search for it, we did find it in a post. But the fact remains the people who actually go out and camp in a true bush setting with dogs, cats etc...have native wildlife coming through camp..including during the 25 plus years that we have been camping with dogs...if my facts aren't right after my 25 years of camping in bush settings in secluded and remote areas well away from campgrounds with dogs in tow and plenty of native wildlife coming close to camp... within five metres from camp and into camp at night...then I don't know..not at any point did I say I wanted dogs in national parks, I just suggested that dogs should be permitted in national parks on a leash without any issues. A dog on a leash will create less damage than human beings and kids...
Waffleightis said
06:36 PM Aug 30, 2017
We lived on the tablelands in far North Queensland with a tropical bush garden...the Atherton tablelands is the Native Wildlife capital of Australia, if you have never been there...go and experience it...we had 2 Labradors roaming the yard every day and also night time. If you have never owned two Labradors then you have no idea the amount of poo that is created...regardless...we had potoroos, wallabies, bandicoots, possums of all kinds, birds of all kinds coming into the yard without coaxing in and also without a worry of the dogs being in the yard and the smells they leave behind...these native animals and many more were not tamed in anyway...we did not live within town but on a property.
Waffleightis said
06:49 PM Aug 30, 2017
I may be waffling on here...hence the name waffleightis š Another point may I add...Wongabel state forest in situated just outside of Atherton QLD is one of the most unique forests in the whole of Australia...has a tree that doesn't grow in any other forest across the country, the mabi tree which most likely has native wildlife unique to its forest boundaries...and yet it remains a state forest which can be actively used for recreation and it is dog friendly. There are tree kangaroos also unique to far North Queensland, possums unique to FNQ and many insects and glowing fungus not seen anywhere but FNQ...Why not name it a National Park and prohibit dogs to protect it???? With this I question the motives behind National Park laws, its naming of national parks and its prohibiting of dogs.
Plain Truth said
07:13 PM Aug 30, 2017
Waffleightis wrote:
last time we were there goonowigal was a national park, if it had changed since then...so be it...Phurphy's???? Who creates the most damage in national parks??? Human beings!!!!, but I will not argue what I said as I do have my fact straight, and anyway...what is the difference between state forest, national parks and state conservation area's. They all look the same and consist of the same native wildlife...50% allow dogs and 50% don't, why restrict in one and not the other ???? Just beauracratic gobbledygook.... what about Dalrymple National park...its there for the human heritage, due to the historic town of Basalt, Now known as Dalrymple. It's was not named NP due to the animals that reside it it...What about Millstream Falls National Park..Named NP due to its army history and artifacts....None of the above 2 allow dogs...And Hill End in NSW which is managed by National Parks and allows Dogs??? The one in Victoria..we are unsure on the name now am currently doing a search for it, we did find it in a post. But the fact remains the people who actually go out and camp in a true bush setting with dogs, cats etc...have native wildlife coming through camp..including during the 25 plus years that we have been camping with dogs...if my facts aren't right after my 25 years of camping in bush settings in secluded and remote areas well away from campgrounds with dogs in tow and plenty of native wildlife coming close to camp... within five metres from camp and into camp at night...then I don't know..not at any point did I say I wanted dogs in national parks, I just suggested that dogs should be permitted in national parks on a leash without any issues. A dog on a leash will create less damage than human beings and kids...
Hill End is not a NPhttps://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/hill-end-historic-site,
Why don't post photos of your dogs with kangaroos,still waiting for the Nat park in Vic. that allows dogs
You have been camping 25 yrs plus,so what does that mean.I have been camping 61 yrs.
Plain Truth said
07:24 PM Aug 30, 2017
The national park in Vic.you are thinking of was I believe Cape Conran,it was changed to a Coastal Park in 1997,it still has a part of the park for dogs.Nice park
TheHeaths said
07:52 PM Aug 30, 2017
According to Wikipedia, areas protected by law in Australia (National Parks and the like) total ~ 895000 sq kms. That is 11.5% of the total land area.
In other words we have 88.5% of the total land area to take our dogs. Whatever the reason for banning them in NP's, surely 88.5% of the total land area is enough for even the most active dogs!
Lets just accept that there places they are not welcome, and get on and enjoy where they are allowed.
Incidentally, I firmly believe the reason for banning them is not that they scare the wildlife, but that they can go feral if not controlled, and create problems by killing for food, and breeding with native dogs. It is not the dog on the leash, and the good owners that create the issue Waffleightis. It is the minority of owners who decide their dogs don't need to be constrained by the rules. They are your real problem.
Waffleightis said
08:08 PM Aug 30, 2017
I didn't say hill end was a national park I said it was managed by national parks and wildlife. I'll excuse your mistake of posting the link from the national parks and wildlife website with info on the town!!!! Also although goonanwigal is a state park now it is still managed by national parks and wildlife. Check your facts out before posting links willly nilly to try and prove a point!!!. And if your only criticism of my comments was the fact that I got the name of gooniwigal state park wrong and only because it used to be national park and that I am unable to remember the name of the park in Victoria that allows dogs, then I can't have allot wrong in everything else I said. Have been going to hill end since my childhood and mum and dad had been going longer than that, in fact went there for their honeymoon along with much time spent camping down abandoned trails in state forest etc etc. Me 25 plus years and you 60plus years just means your older than me...that is all, I am 37...I may not be grey. But I am a full time nomad with 25 years of camping and wildlife experience and also in all that time camping with dogs. Mum was a marvel who shown my brother and I from a young age the joys of observing animals and nature, the weather and all. I prefer watching animals for hours over watching a box in the corner of the room or the computer. Watching a spider weave its web is the most awesome thing. I do have photos of the dogs with native untamed wildlife up close...you will have to be patient as I have 4 terabytes of up close and personal nature photos of animals and not captured with a long zoom in lense either, just a humble point and shoot and short zoom lense on the canon slr. My brother and I spend days, weeks in one location nature watching and sitting long enough for the birds and animals to venture into camp...with dogs close by and capture within one meter away a wild animal...you wouldn't believe how that feels knowing that you have captured a glimpse of that animal in its natural environment and knowing that you and your dogs have not interrupted them from doing what they normally do, I can post plenty and I am not afraid to post them either...My brother and I have done nature surveys over weeks and months with detailed records of native wildlife plus what mum and dad did years ago, again you will have to wait for proof as they are in storage and currently innacessable due to the distance we are from our units, we lost mum 3 months ago to a long battle with cancer and dad 6 months earlier to complications with dementia and are staying clear of the storage units for emotional reasons as you would understand, the majority of the stuff in there is mum and dads and emotions are too raw at this point. I will go through the photos readily. Upon reading your last comment you still haven't understood my point though and the name of the park in Victoria is irrelevant, even you could search for that on google and don't tell me it doesn't exist because it does!!!! The fact I am trying to make is why call one forest a national park and allow dogs and another a national park and not allow dogs, and why not name a state forest a national park that has the most rarest and unique trees and wildlife in Australia..in fact the world and not protect it and allow dogs in to be walked. I question the logic and knowledge of national parks as if the scent of dogs and their poo scared of animals why allow in one and not another. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...if allowed in one...why not all on a leash. I may not have a degree in natural science etc, but with my experience with nature means I am knowledgeable enough to know the facts about what keeps a native animal away from an area and what doesnt and just because your over 60 doesn't mean you know more than I do, it simply means you are older, I am humble and not here to boast I just love being in nature, in forests, in the bush and secluded amongst the wildlife without people on our doorstep and to know that I can take my furry kid in by my side to enjoy it with me, she is the only type of child I will have as I cannot have kids...but I think we might agree to disagree because i don't think we will ever agree, I just regard native and domestic animals including ourselves (who are also animals) to be able to enjoy the great outdoors peacefully, equally and in harmony!!! But unfortunately the few always ruin it for the many, the human animal is the worst culprit for damage to the earth and wildlife..could we at least agree on that one
Waffleightis said
08:15 PM Aug 30, 2017
Thanks for reminding me of the name of the park in Victoria, we haven't been there but are planning to visit the dog friendly area in future. And 88% of land is allot of land for us all to enjoy with our dogs and wildlife in general. Think of how much better it could be if we could all enjoy the freedom of 100% of Australia with our dogs, unfortunately some of the best areas to camp are national parks, places I used to camp when I was young are now national park and not pet friendly, which is a shame as my brother and I have some wonderful memories of the camping trips with mum and dad and I wouldn't give up our furry kids just because 11% of Australia doesn't permit them.
Waffleightis said
08:21 PM Aug 30, 2017
Thanks for the chat guys, I hope one day that people with pets can have equal enjoyment of the pleasures of Australia that those who don't have pets can, after what my brother and I have been through over the last few months with mums cancer and dads dementia....life is too short to debate and argue...I will leave this as a message to all on all forums, life is too short to not enjoy and we all should agree to disagree rather than get hot under the collar!!! Have a good one guys and safe travels around our awesome country!!!!
aussie_paul said
09:51 PM Aug 30, 2017
Waffleightis wrote:
I will leave this as a message to all on all forums, life is too short to not enjoy and we all should agree to disagree rather than get hot under the collar!!! Have a good one guys and safe travels around our awesome country!!!!
I've always had dogs and lived in the bush for 30 yrs, but the smell of my dogs has never seemed to affect the wildlife, kangaroos come into the house yard and possums even come in the dog door to raid the dry dog food. Never the less, the rules about dogs in national parks are what they are and there are many other beautiful places to visit. NSW parks just suggested that I stay in State Forest, and I've never felt I missed anything important. If there are no dogs in heaven I'm not going there either
-- Edited by HiAce98 on Tuesday 12th of December 2017 02:20:14 AM
HiAce98 said
02:14 AM Dec 12, 2017
Hewy54 wrote:
80% !!!! Get real. I am a dog lover , always have been always will be. Dogs have no place in a national park. If the natural wildlife get the scent of a dog, they will stay away from that area, and this scent stay around for a long time. It is nothing about second class citizens. It is about protecting our national parks. If you want to travel with a dog stay out of national parks.
I wish that the scent of my dog's leavings would scare the kangaroos away from my pot plants. Now that he's getting too old to bother chasing them the damn things are coming right up to the house to browse
Tony Bev said
02:33 AM Dec 12, 2017
The only national parks I have stayed in (as far as I know) are in Western Australia
I have seen the Rangers send travellers away, when they have an animal with them
I have seen them warn younger (locals to the area), who had come along with boom boxes and gensets, thinking that it would be a good place to party
The rules are well signposted, and the Ranger are doing their job, as others have already said, there is a reason for the rules
msg said
11:08 AM Dec 12, 2017
BUT, Tony Bev, have you found out what the real reason for the rules are?
I was a terrible kid, I always kept asking "why?" when told to do something.
Still have to find a logical answer for dogs to be banned from NPs
Damm possums Can't grow anything. Damm dog , after 14yrs still has a heart attack when they cross our roof at 3 am.
Hewy54 said
11:41 AM Dec 12, 2017
msg wrote:
BUT, Tony Bev, have you found out what the real reason for the rules are?
I was a terrible kid, I always kept asking "why?" when told to do something.
Still have to find a logical answer for dogs to be banned from NPs
Damm possums Can't grow anything. Damm dog , after 14yrs still has a heart attack when they cross our roof at 3 am.
The real reasons are that it is a National Park.
Not all your fur babies behave perfectly and not all owners do the right thing.
The Park rangers cannot do an obedience check for each animal so they are banned.
I know that some humans are the same but thats life.
I love my dogs, but do not travel with them. If you make the choice to travel with your animals there are going to be limits on some activities.
Get over it, I hope the rules do not change.
Aus-Kiwi said
11:43 AM Dec 12, 2017
Itās more about human behaviour !! As much as dogs ., We ALL know we cannot control ALL people !! Heāll most wont even pick up their pop !! So the total law suffices !!! Think of it the same with speed limits, seat belts or drink driving !! Unfortunately itās the lowest common nomintator !! Yes we have to have rules due to the bogans out there !!!
jab160 said
03:41 PM Jan 5, 2018
There's "dogs", and there's DOGS, our 2 man eaters ( toy poodles ) would endanger ?????, fair go. Both spend most of their lives indoors ( their choice ). I'm more inclined to heavily fine owners of problem dogs.
As to national parks, in general......breeding grounds for pigs / foxes / cats. ( now the fight begins )
gold dandelion said
05:37 PM Jan 5, 2018
dog owners can't act civil on here, how can you expect them to act civil in a National Park.
Hewy54 said
05:55 PM Jan 5, 2018
Not in a National Park, but we just had an interesting few days in a caravan park that is dog friendly that shows the unfortunate attitude of some dog owners.
Upon entering the park, patrons with a dog sign a paper that says their dog will be on a lead AT ALL TIMES.
The couple we stayed with had a dog and did the right thing. Walked it several times a day outside the park and picked up after it, on a lead in the park at all times.
Out of the 7 dogs near us each was off the lead regularly, two of them just wandered into our campsite to have their crap.
I was interested to note that ALL of the owners of the larger dogs were very good. The problem was was with the little fluffies that the owners believe are so cute and cause no problems.
I am a dog lover, but we choose to leave our Malamute with our daughter.
jab160 said
08:27 PM Jan 5, 2018
gold dandelion wrote:
dog owners can't act civil on here, how can you expect them to act civil in a National Park.
Geez dandy, that's a bit rough. I object "dog owners...bla bla bla"
HiAce98 said
01:19 AM Feb 1, 2018
Greystone wrote:
A park ranger once told me that the scent of dogs, including their poo and urine scares off native wild life. That's why they prohibit dogs in national parks.
I've heard that one too often. If it were true then I wouldn't have kangaroos on my doorstep. I live on 40acre bush block with all sorts of wildlife which don't give a damn about my two dogs. Maybe the wildlife in national parks are more sensitive souls LOL
Peter_n_Margaret said
09:39 AM Feb 1, 2018
There is always someone who thinks that the rules don't apply to them.
SNIP~~~ Incidentally, I firmly believe the reason for banning them is not that they scare the wildlife, but that they can go feral if not controlled, and create problems by killing for food, and breeding with native dogs. It is not the dog on the leash, and the good owners that create the issue Waffleightis. It is the minority of owners who decide their dogs don't need to be constrained by the rules. They are your real problem.
Gday...
Cheers - John
the rocket said
11:31 AM Feb 4, 2018
rockylizard wrote:
TheHeaths wrote:
SNIP~~~ Incidentally, I firmly believe the reason for banning them is not that they scare the wildlife, but that they can go feral if not controlled, and create problems by killing for food, and breeding with native dogs. It is not the dog on the leash, and the good owners that create the issue Waffleightis. It is the minority of owners who decide their dogs don't need to be constrained by the rules. They are your real problem.
Hill End is not a NPhttps://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/hill-end-historic-site,
Why don't post photos of your dogs with kangaroos,still waiting for the Nat park in Vic. that allows dogs
You have been camping 25 yrs plus,so what does that mean.I have been camping 61 yrs.
The national park in Vic.you are thinking of was I believe Cape Conran,it was changed to a Coastal Park in 1997,it still has a part of the park for dogs.Nice park
In other words we have 88.5% of the total land area to take our dogs. Whatever the reason for banning them in NP's, surely 88.5% of the total land area is enough for even the most active dogs!
Lets just accept that there places they are not welcome, and get on and enjoy where they are allowed.
Incidentally, I firmly believe the reason for banning them is not that they scare the wildlife, but that they can go feral if not controlled, and create problems by killing for food, and breeding with native dogs. It is not the dog on the leash, and the good owners that create the issue Waffleightis. It is the minority of owners who decide their dogs don't need to be constrained by the rules. They are your real problem.
Well said Waffleightis.
Aussie Paul.
I've always had dogs and lived in the bush for 30 yrs, but the smell of my dogs has never seemed to affect the wildlife, kangaroos come into the house yard and possums even come in the dog door to raid the dry dog food. Never the less, the rules about dogs in national parks are what they are and there are many other beautiful places to visit. NSW parks just suggested that I stay in State Forest, and I've never felt I missed anything important. If there are no dogs in heaven I'm not going there either
-- Edited by HiAce98 on Tuesday 12th of December 2017 02:20:14 AM
I wish that the scent of my dog's leavings would scare the kangaroos away from my pot plants. Now that he's getting too old to bother chasing them the damn things are coming right up to the house to browse
I have seen the Rangers send travellers away, when they have an animal with them
I have seen them warn younger (locals to the area), who had come along with boom boxes and gensets, thinking that it would be a good place to party
The rules are well signposted, and the Ranger are doing their job, as others have already said, there is a reason for the rules
I was a terrible kid, I always kept asking "why?" when told to do something.
Still have to find a logical answer for dogs to be banned from NPs
Damm possums Can't grow anything. Damm dog , after 14yrs still has a heart attack when they cross our roof at 3 am.
The real reasons are that it is a National Park.
Not all your fur babies behave perfectly and not all owners do the right thing.
The Park rangers cannot do an obedience check for each animal so they are banned.
I know that some humans are the same but thats life.
I love my dogs, but do not travel with them. If you make the choice to travel with your animals there are going to be limits on some activities.
Get over it, I hope the rules do not change.
As to national parks, in general......breeding grounds for pigs / foxes / cats. ( now the fight begins )
Upon entering the park, patrons with a dog sign a paper that says their dog will be on a lead AT ALL TIMES.
The couple we stayed with had a dog and did the right thing. Walked it several times a day outside the park and picked up after it, on a lead in the park at all times.
Out of the 7 dogs near us each was off the lead regularly, two of them just wandered into our campsite to have their crap.
I was interested to note that ALL of the owners of the larger dogs were very good. The problem was was with the little fluffies that the owners believe are so cute and cause no problems.
I am a dog lover, but we choose to leave our Malamute with our daughter.
Geez dandy, that's a bit rough. I object "dog owners...bla bla bla"
I've heard that one too often. If it were true then I wouldn't have kangaroos on my doorstep. I live on 40acre bush block with all sorts of wildlife which don't give a damn about my two dogs. Maybe the wildlife in national parks are more sensitive souls LOL
There is always someone who thinks that the rules don't apply to them.
May, 2017, Witjira National Park.
Gday...
Cheers - John