Paid taxes all my life yet cant access national parks because i travel with mans best friend

Les_Donz · Veteran Member

RE: Paid taxes all my life yet cant access national parks because i travel with mans best friend

dorian · Guru

Shogun wrote:
Re seeing eye dogs...they are a necessity for sight impaired people and i have no problem with them being allowed into NP's with their owners.

There would be a minuscule amount of them being in NP's anyway.

Maybe if we banned people who are sight impaired, then we wouldn't have the problem of their dogs.....cant believe the insensitivity of some people.

You missed the point entirely. Native animals cannot distinguish between a docile seeing eye dog and a feral beast.

Let's say I inherited a blind person's guide dog and I was travelling with it. Would I be allowed to take it to a national park?

gordon_adl · Senior Member

I agree. To me it's a ridiculous ignorant argument. Unless you're a criminal, everyone pays taxes. If one doesn't like a law, at least have the courage to do something about it rather than moan that 'i've paid my taxes' and expect you deserve some

special treatment instead.

Nomadicman wrote:
It is absurd to argue (as people so often do) that "I have been paying taxes all my life". We all have and we all disagree with some laws that restrict our freedom

GaryKelly · Guru

I was born and raised in the south western suburbs of Sydney where I saw heaps of sparrows, pigeons, starlings, dogs and cats. I have a vague recollection of seeing a kookaburra one time that my mother pointed out. But I was 16 before I saw my first kangaroo and that was because I was holidaying at Coonamble. So, for all my 24 years living in the south western suburbs of Sydney, Australia, I managed to see just one example of a native species. Go figure.

Les_Donz · Veteran Member

Thats why i have started this to see a concensus so that i can start harrassing the environmental minister.I do not complain but look for likeminded people who believe in correcting unjust laws that achieve nothing but warm fuzzy feelings from their misguided perceptions of control..I may be old but i am not blind to subserviant rules.

Wombat 280 · Guru

Nomadicman wrote:
As it's well proven that feral dogs and cats have decimated many species of native animals, I am 10% behind the ban. Sure, you might be responsible while others are not, but sadly most laws affect the law abiding majority.
It is absurd to argue (as people so often do) that "I have been paying taxes all my life". We all have and we all disagree with some laws that restrict our freedom (I don't want to be told I cannot overnight in my van at certain locations, for example), but overall our set of laws have been arrived at by a democratic process: we are fortunate.
Oh, do vote in 2 weeks time! (preferably the same way as me...but.... haha)

The decimation of the native animals is largely the result of feral cats , foxes and wild dogs and human urbanization. Now there is science to back that statement up. A cat feral or domestic kills at least one piece of wild life per day, Yep even the docile moggy sitting on the lounge until you turf it out at night for a wee will stalk and kill something before it comes back in and not necessarily a mouse or the like. Lets face it there are responsible and not so responsible pet owners but on the whole pet owners would stay out there in the wild until they found their lost pet. A plan to control dogs in nature reserves /NP's could consist of micro chip registration for park entry and must at all times be leashed and the normal community rule of poo bags would apply. Dogs found in the park without rego or off leash will be impounded and the owner heavily fined, pets of repeat offenders will be put down and the owner again fined or given six months for their stupidity . Firstly the laws need to be changed to make it impossible for person to sell dogs without first having them council micro chipped and only council chipped dogs will be NP chipped to allow entry into parks .

There is an urgent need to rewrite the duty statements of some NP employees to get them out of the office and away from the chair borne division and back into the field regardless of how many degrees they have .

The vote in two weeks will not change the situation as NP are funded by the Feds but administered by the State under some caretaker arrangements ,it's very messy to try and work out who ,what and when the controls come into play

Let them do some legitimate scientifically based studies then the debate with have a solid foundation , at the moment the so called EX= PERTS remain a drips under pressure.

Rip and Rosie · Guru

Les_Donz wrote:
Thats why i have started this to see a concensus so that i can start harrassing the environmental minister.I do not complain but look for likeminded people who believe in correcting unjust laws that achieve nothing but warm fuzzy feelings from their misguided perceptions of control..I may be old but i am not blind to subserviant rules.

Well, don't lobby on my behalf!

There is a genuine reason for this.

EllenajoeL · Senior Member

As far I can determine, based on empirically-accepted science, 'Australia' (as a continental landform only) was formed somewhere between 80 and 40 millions years ago.......and that, many eons later and over many eons, Native flora and fauna was gradually 'specialised' to said, landlocked environment.

Also, as far I understand modern history, the importation of European/alien animals commenced with immigrant sailing fleet about a few hundred years ago and, for sure, 'Australia' (as a nation with Westiminster legal jurisprudence) started in 1901.

I am all for dedicated efforts involving the systemic removal of recent 'problems'.....its just that I have NO idea why anyone assumes that '2013 situations' should be acceptably impacting on the nature, intent and importance of our very special/unique biodiversity developed over so long etc (and thats why I dont take my dogs into NPs wink )....

rockylizard · Guru

Wombat 280 wrote:

~~SNIP~~ A plan to control dogs in nature reserves /NP's could consist of micro chip registration for park entry and must at all times be leashed and the normal community rule of poo bags would apply. Dogs found in the park without rego or off leash will be impounded and the owner heavily fined, pets of repeat offenders will be put down and the owner again fined or given six months for their stupidity . ~~SNIP~~

Gday...

Wombat I applaud your effort to assist in finding a solution to this very emotive problem. However, the scenario you have painted above is not being adhered to within the suburbs of our cities by the pet owners - why would these same pet owners be any different in the "wild" ... there's dog poo left across the nation - footpaths, parks, van parks, camping areas.

And these same pet owners who show such distain for others also usually don't have their pets on a leash ... letting them wander and run free in camps and parks.

I can see absolutely no correlation with having paid taxes for any period of time and that therefore giving me 'special treatment' not afforded to others in the community.

The price of owning a pet is that there are many places that they cannot be taken into - shops, restaurants etc etc. No matter how well trained or behaved or controlled such a pet may be.

Life was not meant to be easy ... and the vocal minority will always cause the implementation of rules and regulations that will affect the majority - I think that is, and has always been, democracy. cry

Cheers - John

Les_Donz · Veteran Member

I would like everyone for their comments even though i disagree with some of them but that is what makes a democracy

NeilandRaine · Guru

We complain because free camps are closed, sometimes because of irresponsible people who use them
We would complain if National Parks were closed because of irresponsible people with pets............. It would happen
Toughen up people and be grateful for what you do have instead of continually complaining about what you can't have

gordon_adl · Senior Member

Wow, I wrote that ages ago and got chastised to heck and back again for it. Maybe I'm converting a few

NeilandRaine wrote:
be grateful for what you do have instead of continually complaining about what you can't have

Shogun · Senior Member

I've paid lots of taxes over my life too and I don't want dogs in National Parks.

The dog lady · Guru

NeilandRaine · Guru

gordon_adl wrote:
Wow, I wrote that ages ago and got chastised to heck and back again for it. Maybe I'm converting a few
NeilandRaine wrote:
be grateful for what you do have instead of continually complaining about what you can't have
I have always agreed with your common sense approach Gordon

Wombat 280 · Guru

We could hypothesis on this topic forever and a day . Unfortunately those who make the rules have no creditable science to back up their claims about dog scent and the feral traits of dogs impacting on the native fauna and resist requests to do the science, and given the current political mindset we will only become bogged down in another circular debate . Yes there are wild dogs out there as their are Feral/ Domestic Cats , Pigs Foxes , Rabbits Sheep, Cattle, Donkeys , Camels and Wild Horses to name only a few destructive pests and then the biggest threat of all Humans. The biggest shift in wild life numbers is a combination of feral animals , bush fires, control burn offs and the most destructive impact comes from our urbanization desires . When we develop our land we obviously displace the fauna and flora of the area forcing migration into others environs ,hence, the demographics of the area changes overtime and on and on that process continues until we reach the Wallace Darwin answer to the question "Why some die and some live" to which both wrote 'Those variants best fitted to their circumstance will survive." Placing unilateral bans on the dog or trying to bait shot or otherwise eradicate what we view as pests is somewhat a useless and expensive exercise without any worthwhile outcomes.

The control of domestic dogs in NP is hardly rocket science, if those in-charge applied lateral thought to the situation it could be used to create another lucrative revenue stream to fund our parks as is the proposal to allow shooters into parks hunt. If the powers can see a way to control hunters then why not turn those thought processes into revisiting proposals for the admittance of dogs under licence into our parks . Unfortunately the easy option is taken to apply a blanket ban on all pets