Last week we tried to have a look at the Pinnicles near Cevanties, on the road in there's a sign "If you have a dog or cat in your vehicle, TURN BACK NOW"
The person who authorised this sign must certainly hate animals or is this just another revenue raiser? In other states, whilst they inforce the "No Pets" rule they at least let you go in with the pet in your vehicle. When on tour in other states we at least got to see the sights, we'd take turns looking after our pet whilst the other would take the happy snaps. It was a comprimise but at least we got to see the sights. W.A. won't allow this and threatens fines if you try.
Why is it that RESPONSIBLE pet owners are always penalised?
Pushing this rule in W.A. further one has to ask..... Is it legal or OK to drive on the Roads or Highways that pass through National Parks because technicly you are in the National Park?
I know there's the arguement to find a place to stay (sometimes easier said than done) and have your pet looked after, but when you're passing through and just want a quick look, that's just not posible AND an additional unwanted expence. Our little dog is part of the family, spoiled rotten and thinks she's human, when she's away with us she's always looked after by one of us and the thought of putting her in a kennel would be stressful for both the dog and us.
Santa said
08:15 PM Feb 11, 2015
Just another reason we wont be returning to WA.
Spook said
07:21 PM Feb 12, 2015
Santa wrote:
Just another reason we wont be returning to WA.
And we feel the same.
dorian said
08:11 AM Feb 13, 2015
One day I'll be travelling with my dog and I expect to be excluded from the national parks. For those parks that allow pets in vehicles, what do you do when your dog or cat wants to do its business?
madaboutled said
12:00 PM Feb 13, 2015
dorian wrote:
One day I'll be travelling with my dog and I expect to be excluded from the national parks. For those parks that allow pets in vehicles, what do you do when your dog or cat wants to do its business?
Whilst our dog is an Indoor dog and prefers to go outside, she's been trained to use a litter tray, so if we don't or won't let her out she'll use the tray. Most cats are easy to train to use litter trays. In our case one of us would be with her, so we do the clean up straight away. Same thing at night, if she needs to go urgently she'll use the tray. She's only a small dog so for us a cat litter tray works fine.
pawsoz said
01:30 PM Feb 18, 2015
As far as I am aware, very few NP's allow pets even if they do stay in vehicle, problem is too many people have done the ' oh we won't let the dogs/cats whatever out' thing and then ....let them out
Having said that, by teaming up with other pet owners travelling in same direction as myself I have missed very few NP's, including my whole trip around WA where there were 4 seperate vehicles travelling in roughly same direction, we met up at Kununurra and worked out roughly when we would be at various places and then meet up tp pet sit for each other for 2-3 days or so, that way we all got to enjoy a day or two in the NP's ...worked out very well and everyone was happy including the pets!
The other way you can visit a NP is suss out the nearest vets they will often be able to accommodate a pet for 1-2 nights...did that in Broome to go up the Cape...
annie
Dunmowin said
08:06 PM Feb 23, 2015
Pawsoz is right, there are very few NPs that allow you to take pets into them, so don't take it out on WA. That I am aware, there is one in Victoria, but that may have changed now. If you are a responsible pet owner, you have rules to live by, and one of them just happens to be "no domestic animals in national parks". Live with it, there are plenty of other places to visit where you can take your pets.
We travelled for 18 months with our dog before he passed away and I don't feel we missed much at all. Now on our second lap, we get to go to all the places we could not go the first time around.
"The baits will be spread across a vast swathe of WA, stretching from Esperance in the south to the Pilbara in the north, covering more than 3 million hectares of land controlled by the department."
If you've ever lost a dog to a bait you will understand my feelings, sadly, we've lost two.
PeterD said
09:14 AM Feb 24, 2015
madaboutled wrote:
Last week we tried to have a look at the Pinnicles near Cevanties, on the road in there's a sign "If you have a dog or cat in your vehicle, TURN BACK NOW"
1. The person who authorised this sign must certainly hate animals or is this just another revenue raiser? In other states, whilst they inforce the "No Pets" rule they at least let you go in with the pet in your vehicle. When on tour in other states we at least got to see the sights, we'd take turns looking after our pet whilst the other would take the happy snaps. It was a comprimise but at least we got to see the sights. W.A. won't allow this and threatens fines if you try.
2. Why is it that RESPONSIBLE pet owners are always penalised?
3. Pushing this rule in W.A. further one has to ask..... Is it legal or OK to drive on the Roads or Highways that pass through National Parks because technicly you are in the National Park?
1. I'm not sure what all the rant is about. Pets are not allowed in national parks in other states. That includes pets retained in vehicles, if you have a pet in your vehicle you are transgressing the law by having your vehicle in that park (excludes the handful of parks in Oz where they are specifically permitted.) The people at the Pinnacles are just being a little more specific about what actually applies in other national parks.
2. I'm not sure about this term responsible pet owners. I have friends who claim to be "responsible pet owners." They all transgress the law by letting their pets out for a leak and do not restrain them in their vehicles. They all let their dogs off the lead when in caravan parks. Even you admit to being a law breaker (When on tour in other states we at least got to see the sights, we'd take turns looking after our pet whilst the other would take the happy snaps,) you should not have had your dog in those parks. That has caused doubts in my mind about your claims of being of being "a responsible dog owner."
As far as giving special dispensation for "responsible pet owners" for limited access to facilities in national parks with their pets, please explain how an inspector an inspector is going to quickly determine you are one of the exempt.
3. As far as I'm aware, public roads passing through are public roads for the width of the road reserves. You are permitted to travel through the park on tat road but you are not permitted to stop and let your dog out of the vehicle.
-- Edited by PeterD on Tuesday 24th of February 2015 09:20:38 AM
Gerty Dancer said
12:46 PM Feb 24, 2015
Good onya PeterD, its not what pet owners want to hear, but true. Claiming to be a "responsible pet owner" means nothing if you are being irresponsible enough to try to enter a place where they are not allowed. The pinnacles is an amazing place, kept very clean, we wouldn't have been very impressed if there was dog-do on/near the track, which we've seen in other places..
We don't expect to take our dogs into places like NP's, and we make other arrangements.
madaboutled said
03:14 PM Feb 27, 2015
Gerty Dancer wrote:
we wouldn't have been very impressed if there was dog-do on/near the track, which we've seen in other places..
There we go, that's just one of the differences so you'll never find with a responsible pet owner. Some people have pets and treat them like animals and some people have pets and treat them as family, we are of the later. You'd clean up after your kid wouldn't you??? Well, we treat our dog like a little kid, she' family!.
We could flaunt the rules and register our dog as a "Comfort Dog" and then be legally allowed into any National Park in Australia. I just think that the NP rules are too strict and common sense should prevail after all "State Forests" allow dogs on short leads. And then, there are some humans that should never be allowed in NP's but that's another issue. OK rules are rules, but human nature is that if you don't like a rule you discuss it and lobby for change. All NP's allow some dogs in certain circumstances, just saying why not dogs that are in control by responsible owners.
Yes, we have gone into some NP's and the dog has stayed in the vehicle with one of us, but only those parks that have allowed dog's to travel through in vehicles. Most Rangers we've talked to have a common sense approach to this senario. We were just annoyed to travel 100's of K's to see something only to be turned away by a sign when we got there, what a waste!. And yes we did turn around and didn't enter the park.
Izabarack said
09:12 AM Mar 14, 2015
(Quote)The person who authorised this sign must certainly hate animals or is this just another revenue raiser?
Why is it that RESPONSIBLE pet owners are always penalised?(UnQuote)
The person who authorised the sign does not hate animals or is looking to raise revenue. They are simply trying to get people to follow the rules; rules that are in place for very good reasons. A responsible pet owner would understand the negative effects of domestic pets (including dogs on leads) in NPs and do the right thing.
I recently found a dog with its lead tied to a No Dogs sign in a NP. Confronted, the owner went on and on about how the rules were stupid and dogs on a lead were not a problem so "they" could stick it! I was able to contact the ranger on the UHF and she promptly came down and kicked the dog owner out, along with a pretty good fine.
Iza
madaboutled said
01:10 PM Mar 14, 2015
Izabarack wrote:
I recently found a dog with its lead tied to a No Dogs sign in a NP. Confronted, the owner went on and on about how the rules were stupid and dogs on a lead were not a problem so "they" could stick it! I was able to contact the ranger on the UHF and she promptly came down and kicked the dog owner out, along with a pretty good fine.
Iza
Clearly not a responsible pet owner!. The point I was making that seems to be lost here, is keeping the pet under control within the confines of a vehicle, that too is not allowed and regardles of rules I can not understand why especially for remote locations where alternative pet minding services are not an option?
And again I emphasise "Most Rangers we've talked to have a common sense approach to this senario" and where we can't check with a ranger first or are resfued this simple request then.... WE DON'T GO. Like the old saying goes... "you don't get if you don't ask". Yes, rules are not to be broken but can be bent in some cases, you only have to ask.
Plain Truth said
09:12 AM Mar 19, 2015
What is wrong with these so-called responsible dog owners wanting to change the rules.They are plainly there to see
I acknowledge that the rules/laws are there and I am compelled to respect them but that doesn't mean that I have to like them nor should it stop me from discussing or lobbying for change or seeking permission to do something. Dog's contained and supervised in vehicles where's the problem??? Sensible Rangers don't see this as an issue. Also I don't believe that 1080 will not kill native animals, I also believe that a Dingo is a native Australian Animal and 1080 will kill Dingo's but that's another issue not the point of topic that's my 5 cents worth cause 2 cents these days is worth nothing.
-- Edited by madaboutled on Thursday 19th of March 2015 12:18:14 PM
madaboutled said
10:36 PM Mar 19, 2015
One would think that an exceptional circumstance would be visiting a national park in a remote location and or where a commercial boarding facility is not within a reasonable and practical traveling distance of up to 50kms each way. As you can see by the policy guidelines below it is at least possible to seek permission to enter a national park with a dog, BUT not with a cat.
I didn't find anywhere in the policy guidelines anything relating to dogs travelling in and or being contained with supervision in vehicles other than marine craft.
At the very least the sign that we saw at the Pinicales which was the start of this topic or any other similar sign for that matter should have listed the nearest towns with distances where commercial boarding facilties are available not just bluntly turn you away without any alternatives.
Source: http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/about/policy/Recreation_tourism_and_visitor_services_Policy_18.pdf See pages 24 to 25
Policy Guidelines 1.13.1 Dogs, cats (see 1.13.3 below) and other domestic animals are not permitted on DEC-managed lands and waters, with the following exceptions: (i) guide dogs for people with visual impairment and dogs for management/security purposes (see 1.13.6 below); (ii) where designated areas for dogs are established by being declared and published in the Government Gazette under the Conservation and Land Management Regulations 2002; (iii) where dogs are travelling in vessels in a marine park or marine management area; (iv) in special cases, as determined by the Coordinator, Park Policy and Services in consultation with the relevant Regional/District Manager. 1.13.2 Designated dog areas will: (i) not be permitted in nature reserves or marine nature reserves except in exceptional circumstances; (ii) generally not be declared in national parks, conservation parks, marine parks and marine management areas, except in circumstances where dog access is considered to be manageable and/or there has been a history of dog access in those areas; (iii) be more likely to be declared in State forest, timber reserves and CALM Act section 5(1) (g) and (h) reserves. 1.13.3 Domestic cats are excluded from all DEC-managed lands because they prey on native fauna. There are no exceptions to this exclusion of cats policy. 1.13.4 Where dogs are permitted on DECmanaged lands and waters in the Perth Metropolitan Region and in townsites, they are required to be on a lead unless they are in an area declared by the local government authority to be a dog exercise area. 1.13.5 Where dogs are permitted on DEC-managed lands and waters outside the Perth Metropolitan Region and townsites, they are required to be on a lead except where DEC has designated the area for dog exercise without the requirement for a lead. Where a dog is not on a lead in these particular areas, it is required to be under the control of a competent person. 1.13.6 Guide dogs for people with sight impairment are permitted on all DEC-managed lands and waters. Specially trained animals for management (i.e. feral animal control), search and rescue, security purposes or the display of animals for educational purposes, may be permitted on DEC-managed land and waters. 1.13.6 Staff resident on reserves may keep family pets (excluding cats) with the approval of the Regional Manager, provided the animals are confined to the area rented by the staff member and any designated dog areas. 1.13.7 Residents adjacent to reserve entrances where domestic animals are not permitted should be encouraged to provide boarding facilities on a commercial basis for visitors who inadvertently arrive with a domestic animal.
-- Edited by madaboutled on Thursday 19th of March 2015 10:42:24 PM
gold dandelion said
09:19 PM Apr 18, 2015
dingoes need to be baited in W.A. for agricultural purposes. also one of the posts from a responsible dog owner about not coming back to W.A. saying he lost 2 dogs from baits begs to differ the responsibility, though I don't know the circumstances'.
tarnell said
07:36 PM Jun 22, 2015
Dear Steve, Di & Ziggy,
I totally agree with you!!!!!
We toured Oz last year with our 2 beautiful, well behaved dogs, when we crossed from NT to WA, the nightmare began. We honestly wondered where we would get accommodation. When we went to CP's that allowed dogs, we were given the worst sites and caravan park owners grizzled and grizzled about 'us dog people'! It got to the stage that it was not a hard saved enjoyable holiday, it was a horrendous The bonds per dog was too ridiculous for words, some being $30-$50 per dog, only refunding at a certain time, and if you were an early riser and wanted to get on the road, too bad! I also asked if there was a bond for children, as some of them were worse than my dogs! I also mentioned to them that I fed them, I groomed them, I walked them and I also cleaned up after them, so why did they need a bond. So....Because of this bond, I made sure they came and inspected my site before I left to see if they thought that it was satisfactory. If they are going to be putting me out, then I would reciprocate
WA is not dog friendly at all and we will never go back there.
Also what harm is there if you do go into a national park and leave your dog in the car. We have a station wagon that has a lockable pen in the back, and the front was covered in shadecloth, with a battery fan attached to the back so that we can leave the kiddies in the shade with plenty of water and the back tailgate of the wagon left up (It is also bolted into the barrier)
Roebuck Plains roadhouse was awesome for us doggy people (30kms outside of Broome) as we could get not 1 caravan park to accept our dogs (we were there in October for the Stairway to the Moon. We asked if we could leave the dogs in the van with air con on and they had no problems with this. Also Argyle Lake was great for the dogs, but be perpared for the 'bonds'
Now if you go to Darwin, I know the perfect place where you can leave your dogs for the day or a week if you preferred with the most awesome people, and they even take some campers, but they get busy, and you cannot book. Google Camp Wallaby in Holtze. Beautiful bush setting.
Got2Go said
04:53 PM Feb 20, 2016
Hi if you have a medical reason you can have your dog in a National park. We travel with our dog and go to alot of National Parks with our dog. We had to get a letter from the doctor stating that our dog was a companion dog and have a jacket on him at all times while in the national park with companion on both sides of his jacket. We have had rangers come up to us about our dog and we show them the doctors letter and then all good we carry on looking around the National Park.
Spook said
08:15 PM Mar 26, 2016
dorian wrote:
One day I'll be travelling with my dog and I expect to be excluded from the national parks. For those parks that allow pets in vehicles, what do you do when your dog or cat wants to do its business?
Sometimes I do wonder if you really like dogs! .....just sayin'.
Last week we tried to have a look at the Pinnicles near Cevanties, on the road in there's a sign "If you have a dog or cat in your vehicle, TURN BACK NOW"
The person who authorised this sign must certainly hate animals or is this just another revenue raiser? In other states, whilst they inforce the "No Pets" rule they at least let you go in with the pet in your vehicle. When on tour in other states we at least got to see the sights, we'd take turns looking after our pet whilst the other would take the happy snaps. It was a comprimise but at least we got to see the sights. W.A. won't allow this and threatens fines if you try.
Why is it that RESPONSIBLE pet owners are always penalised?
Pushing this rule in W.A. further one has to ask..... Is it legal or OK to drive on the Roads or Highways that pass through National Parks because technicly you are in the National Park?
I know there's the arguement to find a place to stay (sometimes easier said than done) and have your pet looked after, but when you're passing through and just want a quick look, that's just not posible AND an additional unwanted expence. Our little dog is part of the family, spoiled rotten and thinks she's human, when she's away with us she's always looked after by one of us and the thought of putting her in a kennel would be stressful for both the dog and us.
Just another reason we wont be returning to WA.
And we feel the same.
Whilst our dog is an Indoor dog and prefers to go outside, she's been trained to use a litter tray, so if we don't or won't let her out she'll use the tray. Most cats are easy to train to use litter trays. In our case one of us would be with her, so we do the clean up straight away. Same thing at night, if she needs to go urgently she'll use the tray. She's only a small dog so for us a cat litter tray works fine.
Having said that, by teaming up with other pet owners travelling in same direction as myself I have missed very few NP's, including my whole trip around WA where there were 4 seperate vehicles travelling in roughly same direction, we met up at Kununurra and worked out roughly when we would be at various places and then meet up tp pet sit for each other for 2-3 days or so, that way we all got to enjoy a day or two in the NP's ...worked out very well and everyone was happy including the pets!
The other way you can visit a NP is suss out the nearest vets they will often be able to accommodate a pet for 1-2 nights...did that in Broome to go up the Cape...
annie
Pawsoz is right, there are very few NPs that allow you to take pets into them, so don't take it out on WA. That I am aware, there is one in Victoria, but that may have changed now. If you are a responsible pet owner, you have rules to live by, and one of them just happens to be "no domestic animals in national parks". Live with it, there are plenty of other places to visit where you can take your pets.
We travelled for 18 months with our dog before he passed away and I don't feel we missed much at all. Now on our second lap, we get to go to all the places we could not go the first time around.
As a dog owner the recently announced cat baiting program http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-30/new-feral-cat-bait-gives-wa-natives-fresh-hope/6058836 is just another reason I wont be returning to WA.
The last paragraph reads
"The baits will be spread across a vast swathe of WA, stretching from Esperance in the south to the Pilbara in the north, covering more than 3 million hectares of land controlled by the department."
If you've ever lost a dog to a bait you will understand my feelings, sadly, we've lost two.
1. I'm not sure what all the rant is about. Pets are not allowed in national parks in other states. That includes pets retained in vehicles, if you have a pet in your vehicle you are transgressing the law by having your vehicle in that park (excludes the handful of parks in Oz where they are specifically permitted.) The people at the Pinnacles are just being a little more specific about what actually applies in other national parks.
2. I'm not sure about this term responsible pet owners. I have friends who claim to be "responsible pet owners." They all transgress the law by letting their pets out for a leak and do not restrain them in their vehicles. They all let their dogs off the lead when in caravan parks. Even you admit to being a law breaker (When on tour in other states we at least got to see the sights, we'd take turns looking after our pet whilst the other would take the happy snaps,) you should not have had your dog in those parks. That has caused doubts in my mind about your claims of being of being "a responsible dog owner."
As far as giving special dispensation for "responsible pet owners" for limited access to facilities in national parks with their pets, please explain how an inspector an inspector is going to quickly determine you are one of the exempt.
3. As far as I'm aware, public roads passing through are public roads for the width of the road reserves. You are permitted to travel through the park on tat road but you are not permitted to stop and let your dog out of the vehicle.
-- Edited by PeterD on Tuesday 24th of February 2015 09:20:38 AM
We don't expect to take our dogs into places like NP's, and we make other arrangements.
There we go, that's just one of the differences so you'll never find with a responsible pet owner. Some people have pets and treat them like animals and some people have pets and treat them as family, we are of the later. You'd clean up after your kid wouldn't you??? Well, we treat our dog like a little kid, she' family!.
We could flaunt the rules and register our dog as a "Comfort Dog" and then be legally allowed into any National Park in Australia. I just think that the NP rules are too strict and common sense should prevail after all "State Forests" allow dogs on short leads. And then, there are some humans that should never be allowed in NP's but that's another issue. OK rules are rules, but human nature is that if you don't like a rule you discuss it and lobby for change. All NP's allow some dogs in certain circumstances, just saying why not dogs that are in control by responsible owners.
Yes, we have gone into some NP's and the dog has stayed in the vehicle with one of us, but only those parks that have allowed dog's to travel through in vehicles. Most Rangers we've talked to have a common sense approach to this senario. We were just annoyed to travel 100's of K's to see something only to be turned away by a sign when we got there, what a waste!. And yes we did turn around and didn't enter the park.
Why is it that RESPONSIBLE pet owners are always penalised?(UnQuote)
The person who authorised the sign does not hate animals or is looking to raise revenue. They are simply trying to get people to follow the rules; rules that are in place for very good reasons. A responsible pet owner would understand the negative effects of domestic pets (including dogs on leads) in NPs and do the right thing.
I recently found a dog with its lead tied to a No Dogs sign in a NP. Confronted, the owner went on and on about how the rules were stupid and dogs on a lead were not a problem so "they" could stick it! I was able to contact the ranger on the UHF and she promptly came down and kicked the dog owner out, along with a pretty good fine.
Iza
Clearly not a responsible pet owner!. The point I was making that seems to be lost here, is keeping the pet under control within the confines of a vehicle, that too is not allowed and regardles of rules I can not understand why especially for remote locations where alternative pet minding services are not an option?
And again I emphasise "Most Rangers we've talked to have a common sense approach to this senario" and where we can't check with a ranger first or are resfued this simple request then.... WE DON'T GO. Like the old saying goes... "you don't get if you don't ask". Yes, rules are not to be broken but can be bent in some cases, you only have to ask.
What is wrong with these so-called responsible dog owners wanting to change the rules.They are plainly there to see
I acknowledge that the rules/laws are there and I am compelled to respect them but that doesn't mean that I have to like them nor should it stop me from discussing or lobbying for change or seeking permission to do something. Dog's contained and supervised in vehicles where's the problem??? Sensible Rangers don't see this as an issue. Also I don't believe that 1080 will not kill native animals, I also believe that a Dingo is a native Australian Animal and 1080 will kill Dingo's but that's another issue not the point of topic that's my 5 cents worth cause 2 cents these days is worth nothing.
-- Edited by madaboutled on Thursday 19th of March 2015 12:18:14 PM
One would think that an exceptional circumstance would be visiting a national park in a remote location and or where a commercial boarding facility is not within a reasonable and practical traveling distance of up to 50kms each way. As you can see by the policy guidelines below it is at least possible to seek permission to enter a national park with a dog, BUT not with a cat.
I didn't find anywhere in the policy guidelines anything relating to dogs travelling in and or being contained with supervision in vehicles other than marine craft.
At the very least the sign that we saw at the Pinicales which was the start of this topic or any other similar sign for that matter should have listed the nearest towns with distances where commercial boarding facilties are available not just bluntly turn you away without any alternatives.
Source: http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/about/policy/Recreation_tourism_and_visitor_services_Policy_18.pdf See pages 24 to 25
Policy Guidelines
1.13.1 Dogs, cats (see 1.13.3 below) and other domestic animals are not permitted on DEC-managed lands
and waters, with the following exceptions:
(i) guide dogs for people with visual impairment and dogs for management/security purposes
(see 1.13.6 below);
(ii) where designated areas for dogs are established by being declared and published in the
Government Gazette under the Conservation and Land Management Regulations 2002;
(iii) where dogs are travelling in vessels in a marine park or marine management area;
(iv) in special cases, as determined by the Coordinator, Park Policy and Services in consultation
with the relevant Regional/District Manager.
1.13.2 Designated dog areas will:
(i) not be permitted in nature reserves or marine nature reserves except in exceptional
circumstances;
(ii) generally not be declared in national parks, conservation parks, marine parks and marine
management areas, except in circumstances where dog access is considered to be
manageable and/or there has been a history of dog access in those areas;
(iii) be more likely to be declared in State forest, timber reserves and CALM Act section 5(1) (g)
and (h) reserves.
1.13.3 Domestic cats are excluded from all DEC-managed lands because they prey on native fauna. There
are no exceptions to this exclusion of cats policy.
1.13.4 Where dogs are permitted on DECmanaged lands and waters in the Perth Metropolitan Region
and in townsites, they are required to be on a lead unless they are in an area declared by the local
government authority to be a dog exercise area.
1.13.5 Where dogs are permitted on DEC-managed lands and waters outside the Perth Metropolitan
Region and townsites, they are required to be on a lead except where DEC has designated the area
for dog exercise without the requirement for a lead. Where a dog is not on a lead in these particular
areas, it is required to be under the control of a competent person.
1.13.6 Guide dogs for people with sight impairment are permitted on all DEC-managed lands and waters.
Specially trained animals for management (i.e. feral animal control), search and rescue, security
purposes or the display of animals for educational purposes, may be permitted on DEC-managed
land and waters.
1.13.6 Staff resident on reserves may keep family pets (excluding cats) with the approval of the Regional
Manager, provided the animals are confined to the area rented by the staff member and any
designated dog areas.
1.13.7 Residents adjacent to reserve entrances where domestic animals are not permitted should be
encouraged to provide boarding facilities on a commercial basis for visitors who inadvertently
arrive with a domestic animal.
-- Edited by madaboutled on Thursday 19th of March 2015 10:42:24 PM
Dear Steve, Di & Ziggy,
I totally agree with you!!!!!
We toured Oz last year with our 2 beautiful, well behaved dogs, when we crossed from NT to WA, the nightmare began. We honestly wondered where we would get accommodation. When we went to CP's that allowed dogs, we were given the worst sites and caravan park owners grizzled and grizzled about 'us dog people'! It got to the stage that it was not a hard saved enjoyable holiday, it was a horrendous
The bonds per dog was too ridiculous for words, some being $30-$50 per dog, only refunding at a certain time, and if you were an early riser and wanted to get on the road, too bad! I also asked if there was a bond for children, as some of them were worse than my dogs! I also mentioned to them that I fed them, I groomed them, I walked them and I also cleaned up after them, so why did they need a bond. So....Because of this bond, I made sure they came and inspected my site before I left to see if they thought that it was satisfactory. If they are going to be putting me out, then I would reciprocate
WA is not dog friendly at all and we will never go back there.
Also what harm is there if you do go into a national park and leave your dog in the car. We have a station wagon that has a lockable pen in the back, and the front was covered in shadecloth, with a battery fan attached to the back so that we can leave the kiddies in the shade with plenty of water and the back tailgate of the wagon left up (It is also bolted into the barrier)
Roebuck Plains roadhouse was awesome for us doggy people (30kms outside of Broome) as we could get not 1 caravan park to accept our dogs (we were there in October for the Stairway to the Moon. We asked if we could leave the dogs in the van with air con on and they had no problems with this. Also Argyle Lake was great for the dogs, but be perpared for the 'bonds'
Now if you go to Darwin, I know the perfect place where you can leave your dogs for the day or a week if you preferred with the most awesome people, and they even take some campers, but they get busy, and you cannot book. Google Camp Wallaby in Holtze. Beautiful bush setting.
Hi if you have a medical reason you can have your dog in a National park. We travel with our dog and go to alot of National Parks with our dog. We had to get a letter from the doctor stating that our dog was a companion dog and have a jacket on him at all times while in the national park with companion on both sides of his jacket. We have had rangers come up to us about our dog and we show them the doctors letter and then all good we carry on looking around the National Park.
Sometimes I do wonder if you really like dogs! .....just sayin'.