Roving-Dutchy wrote:

In the US you can also take them into a motel or hotel room or onto planes and into restaurants. Do I want the same to happen here ,no thank you.

---

---

 

Rubbish, been to the US numerous times over the past 15 years and have yet to see dogs of any type, in any of the places you mention.

---

Dogs dont vandalise, start fires, leave rubbish around,cut down trees yet they are banned from national parks.Surely a better system would be a data base on all people who stay at NP's with pets when first arriving.If the owner is irresponsible, that info is logged in and the culprit never allowed into any other NP with their pets.Another example of the minority penalising the responsible majority.

Gday...

As a previous owner of a beautiful Border Collie who was better than any human and who used to love being in the bush and camping with me, I can understand how you feel.

However, I think the rationale is that dogs are a problem because they can be 'smelt' be the 'wild life' and that causes the 'wildlife' to move away from the area where dogs have been. Similarly, a bark from a dog alarms quite a lot of 'wildlife' again causing disruption.

Cats are of course much worse, especially if they roam, or even worse - get away and turn feral.

Dunno what the answer is but it ain't gonna change in the foreseeable future unfortunately. Just another one of those 'restrictions' foisted on the minority.

Cheers - John

My understanding is that dogs are essentially banned from National Parks (sight dogs excepted) because the purpose of a Nat Park is principally to be a reserve for Native animals only.

Dogs also potentially leave urine (ie scents which attract other dogs) and fecal disease behind; and their bark is not part of the established sounds, thereby causing significant disturbance etc.

At worst, dogs are also prone to become feral/wild and a major predator in such limited, fragile ecosystems.

By the way, I too am a tax paying, dog loving and National Park loving person and have regularly been 'inconvenienced' by this.

I also am proud of the condition and behaviour of my dogs (ie lovers not fighters).

I just dont think I have ANY right to presume my personal effort/opinion should override Nat Park regulations regarding the presumed future of other creatures.

Can understand the the restrictions on domestic animials not allowed into National Parks,but I think it also should be including the Park Officers on more than a few occasions I have been in National Parks and the next thing you see a Dog jump out from the back of his ute and in a few other instances where the Ranger resides inside these parks the dogs are at the place of his residence .

What about all the other ferrel animals they are in some cases out numbering our native wild life ...goats/ camels/wild brumbies and the list could go on and on.

The problem is there is so much of our land now taken over by National Parks but not enough people employed to keep it in the pristine condition it once used to be before all the state/ fed departmental decision makers got a piece of Our Land.

Guess we could take a leaf from the US book, pets are allowed in Yosemite national Park (and I imagine other parks as well) if you would prefer not to take your dog into the park boarding facilities are available for $9.50 per day.

http://www.yosemitepark.com/pets-in-yosemite.aspx

Guess someone over there did a bit of thinking and applied some common sense.

The major destroyers of our native flora and fauna are pigs,cane toads,camels, ferral cats and wild brumbies,all of which are found in NP's

dorian wrote:

---

I have a dog that is not aggressive and that never barks unless absolutely necessary. I always have her on a leash when I take her for a run. However, I agree that national parks are for native animals, not dogs, no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, even though it may appear insensitive, I would also go so far as to say that seeing eye dogs should be excluded for the same reason that other leashed dogs are.

---

 Must agree 100% on that post, as to be fair seeing eye dogs make the same sounds and odours as any domestic dog.

Not at all insensitive making the remark as it is a true fact .

Totally agree with you steve especially about the humans

cloak wrote, ---  One would think a loved well behaved companion animal would be ok given most national parks are already full of feral dogs, cats, pigs, goats, camels, buffalo, cane toads, rodents of numerous types and of course the worst of all the feral human.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of all the comments on this subject, ???? Steve yours is about the only one that is  SPOT ON !!

The laws Should be looked at again, as a well controlled Dog that must be KEPT ON A LEASH, would cause no drama's in my opinion, And the terminology ''National Park'' ?? is very wide and varied ?? There are LOTS of National parks, that also have private property within the borders and those houses and properties nearly all have dogs,

And as for ''Seeing Eye Dogs'' being banned as well, SOME people may think it '' not insensitive'' to say they should also be banned ?/ But I am sure that MOST people would not agree to that ban !! ---- Thank Goodness, MOST is a lot more than SOME ??

Gday...

Back in the 1990s I lived on the Redcliffe Peninsula near Brisbane. The beaches had very bold signs that dogs were not allowed on the beach unless on a lead.

There was one bloke who used to take his dog to the beach, on a lead, and then let it run around all over the beach having a ball - with the lead attached ... but no-one holding it.

Whenever the Inspector used to chat him and try to fine him he used to say "the sign says dogs must be on a leash, where does it say anyone has to be holding the leash?"

The council never seemed to be able to book him.

Guess the wording of the signs etc need to be improved.

Cheers John

Les_Donz wrote:

---

The major destroyers of our native flora and fauna are pigs,cane toads,camels, ferral cats and wild brumbies,all of which are found in NP's

---

For reference:

a 'recent', easily accessible Govt website document on the topic; namely the Australian Pest Animal Strategy (vertebrate) lists the following:

feral foxes, pigs, rabbits, mice, goats, carp, dogs, canetoads, camels, cats and horses

Santa wrote:

---

Guess we could take a leaf from the US book, pets are allowed in Yosemite national Park (and I imagine other parks as well) if you would prefer not to take your dog into the park boarding facilities are available for $9.50 per day.

http://www.yosemitepark.com/pets-in-yosemite.aspx

Guess someone over there did a bit of thinking and applied some common sense.

---

 In the US you can also take them into a motel or hotel room or onto planes and into restaurants. Do I want the same to happen here ,no thank you.

If you want to visit a National Park leave the dog at home.

The only place for dogs is to be kept is on a farm as a working dog.

David

Wombat 280 wrote:

---

The science that the dog ban is based on is rather suspect as I have yet to come across any of the so called research that has ever been peer group reviewed or has had any long-term scientific studies undertaken . One could say that under the current management polices National parks have become a haven for feral animals and bush fires and suck up tax payers funds at a great rate of knots to ensure only those with a fitness level equivalent to an SAS trooper can get into to see really what's in there.. We could do with taking a leaf out of the yanks park management procedures and do the studies . I'm a little over hearing they are "saving it in it's wild state for future generations to enjoy " , they have used that line since Adam was a boy and still no one gets into the real wilderness of our parks . Read the polices of the NPA and the NP and it is unlikely if anyone will ever get into see what's there, everything is basically on the ever growing list of ban activities , I am surprised we are allowed to walk on the grass anymore . Here in NSW we are certainly an over regulated Nanny state.

Why is it you can take your dog / pets into a State Nature Reserve which has the same native animal content as a National Park which applies a universal ban ?

---

 Good post Wombat, well thought out, I agree with all you say.

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)

Nomadicman wrote [ in part ] ---               I am 10% behind the ban      

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   That's  ?????????     Ok ?? I can live with the other 90% ?????

Santa wrote:

---

Roving-Dutchy wrote:

In the US you can also take them into a motel or hotel room or onto planes and into restaurants. Do I want the same to happen here ,no thank you.

---

---

 

Rubbish, been to the US numerous times over the past 15 years and have yet to see dogs of any type, in any of the places you mention.

---

-- Edited by Santa on Friday 23rd of August 2013 09:52:19 PM

---

 I've been there too and have seen dogs in the above places with my own eyes so it is a fact, not rubbish

David

"The majority of US and Canada hotels, motels, and resorts do not allow guests to have pets of any sort in their rooms.
A pet-friendly hotel is a hotel that does allow guests to have a dog, cat, or other small animal in their rooms."

See:

http://hotelguides.com/hotel-pet-check-service.html

Amazingly dogs can travel by plane in the USA albeit in a carrier:

"Most airlines are happy to accommodate your pet, either by keeping them at your seat, or by checking them in to the baggage compartment. Dogs traveling in the cabin of the airplane must meet the airline's size requirements, and they must travel in a carrier that will both accommodate the dog's size and that will fit under the seat in front of you. Most airlines will charge a surcharge for carrying your dog onto the plane."

To me, it is easier, just to turn the van around and give the NP's a miss.

If my dog can't go, I don't go. Simple.

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.

---

 Agree!