I may be waffling on here...hence the name waffleightis ð 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.

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

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

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!!!!

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

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 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.

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 )

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.

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

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.

---

Gday...

 

Cheers - John