Dogs in NP

[ange]

I walk regularly in NP around the Central Coast and am increasingly noticing people bringing their dogs into the parks. Today I was out on a section of the GNW and near the Pearl Beach end people were happily walking along the NP tracks with dogs. Last week out along the another NP coastal track were runners with their dogs.

This kind of gets me cranky a bit because as a person who loves taking their dogs out for a run or walk, I choose the State Forests where dogs are allowed. I check and make sure my girls are in a place where they are allowed.

In the areas where I saw the owners with dogs there is clear signposting that its a NP area and dogs are not allowed.

What do others do? Do you approach or let be? I've mentioned it a couple of times, but owners just stare through you with a 'duhhh' kind of look.

ange

[north-north-west]

I've always pointed out to the owners that their dogs are no permitted to be where they are. Most pretend they don't know.
Sometimes taking a photo helps. If the dogs are friendly I have, on a couple of occasions, checked their rego tags and promised to report the incident. Funny how quickly everyone left after that . . .

[Stroller]

Ah the dogs on a leash? If so , i wouldn't worry about it. If they are running about free, then tell them you will report them to Nat parks and snap their photo. I'm just joking really but its an option if you are really annoyed or think the dog is running riot. And don't be misled by the size of them some little dogs like going hunting. I had a friend who had such a dog. It would go missing for days. Finally she had to keep it on a leash everywhere when it wasn't in the house with her. They lived near the bush, albeit not an NP.

[Bushman_Craig]

I love dogs, so being greeted on the track by a couple of friendly off-leash pooches is something that makes me smile, but dogs have no place in a national park and I will tell the owners as much (while patting their dogs if allowed to). Wildlife habitat and dogs (let alone cats) don't mix. I bet these same friendly dogs would take off after a swamp wallaby or bail up a wombat at the drop of a hat. Nope. Report it if you see it.

[sambar358]

"No dogs in Parks' is pretty-much a corner-stone rule.....there are signs everywhere in Vic NP's indicating this......all NP's are no-go zones for dogs. I wouldn't go confronting people, or whacking out the phone and taking pics or grabbing the pooch to check its rego tags.....just report it to the local Parks office and once this becomes a bit of a pattern maybe Parks will send a Ranger out there to do a bit of face-to-face policing and book a few of the dog owners. Cheers

's358

[devoswitch]

You take a photo of me in the middle of the bush without my permission and expect to lose your phone... Just saying.
But back on point about the dogs I never do that. I have a Kelpie who loves coming with me everywhere but NP is a no go. There's lots of dog walking areas....
Edit: I didn't read Sambars post above very well. You nailed it sorry

[Xplora]

You take a photo of me in the middle of the bush without my permission and expect to lose your phone...

Haven't things changed. I use a camera to take photos. You try to take my camera and you lose a lot more, perhaps your freedom and lots of money. I hate dogs in NP. There are some areas in Vic NP where dogs are allowed on a leash but really it should be the owners on the leash. Rarely see the dogs connected to any restraint. Hate it when they think they can invade your camp and lick all your pots and pans. The owners think that is fine but I would prefer not to have to put up with it.

[DaveNoble]

I quite often see dogs on tracks in national parks in places not too far from towns and houses. And I usually challenge the owner - but not in a confrontational manner - more like "you may not know - that this is a national park, dogs not permitted, big fine if caught ($3300 in NSW)", and what they do to wildlife. I often have a camera and tripod with me - and have been photographing nature - so that may make me appear more authoritative? They always say - "I didn't know...", but at least it makes them think twice next time they go for a walk.

I can remember a zoologist telling me that if a dog walks along a track - then many native animals will not cross that track for several weeks until the dog's scent has gone. Human scent is not seen as threatening as we are not their usual predator.

But, to be fair - some places are not well signposted. One example is Sassafras Gully at Springwood - where I often go to photograph fungi. The trackheads are all in council reserves - and have council signs that don't mention dogs (so they are OK on leashes) - but lower down the track enters Blue Mts National Park - and all there is is a small NPWS logo sign.

Dave

[devoswitch]

You take a photo of me in the middle of the bush without my permission and expect to lose your phone...

Haven't things changed. I use a camera to take photos. You try to take my camera and you lose a lot more, perhaps your freedom and lots of money.

It's not nice practice to take pictures of strangers on your own personal devices whether it be a Camera or Phone or whatever and if I have my two toddlers with me and someone starts photographing me and my children, well I'll take my chances with my freedom.

[north-north-west]

I can remember a zoologist telling me that if a dog walks along a track - then many native animals will not cross that track for several weeks until the dog's scent has gone. Human scent is not seen as threatening as we are not their usual predator.

Yes, quite true. It's especially fraught during the breeding season (for those critters that have one), as it can totally disrupt normal patterns and even - in extreme situations - lead to a complete loss of the next generation in that area.
One of the things I point out to the 'but my dog would never chase/harm another animal' brigade.

[GBW]

It's not nice practice to take pictures of strangers on your own personal devices whether it be a Camera or Phone or whatever...

Unless they're breaking the law!

[FootTrack]

Ah the dogs on a leash? If so , i wouldn't worry about it.

Having your dog on a leash doesn't mean its impact is negligible. Many nesting shorebirds won't return to their nests for hours on end after spotting a dog (even if it is several hundred meters away).

I was reading a similar discussion to this sometime ago on Facebook. One person made this comment, which I thought was interesting.

The golden rule with Hooded Plover conservation, and other shorebird conservation, is a softly softly approach. It's been shown that If you antagonise the local population i.e. those who walk the beach, including those who walk their dogs in the area, there will be ongoing negative consequences for the birds, such as vandalism to nests, signage and barriers. That's why the barriers are so minimal. If you have bigger barriers, and a more aggressive protection approach i.e overt beach patrol, it's been found that you loose community support and the nests are destroyed. It's a fine line between conservation and community support. So, hassling, fining, photographing and confronting people is actually the worst thing you can do. It might make you feel better, but has ongoing negative impacts on the conservation of the birds.

[Stroller]

You take a photo of me in the middle of the bush without my permission and expect to lose your phone... Just saying.
But back on point about the dogs I never do that. I have a Kelpie who loves coming with me everywhere but NP is a no go. There's lots of dog walking areas....
Edit: I didn't read Sambars post above very well. You nailed it sorry

In order not to get a message from the mods, i'm putting this mildly.

Why do you find having your picture taken without permission warrants such a violent response? What is so terrible about having your photo taken? From an objective point of view. Because you reaction to want to bust someone's phone is way out of line and way over the top.

[Nuts]

Just tell the park staff. If the numbers are an issue they'll already know, at least you'll feel better. To press the point you could follow up to see what is being done? Dogs shouldn't be allowed in parks but maybe park boundaries need realigning in some places (if there's no other practical alternative) or pressure to make more of other national reserves ( embrace dog walking etc rather than tolerate) and educate. I can only imagine a prey predator relationship to dogs where there are numbers of feral dogs unmanaged? Related to human traffic it would be very much a localised effect? Give specific info on species effect, even in other land mgnt areas, many outside parks just as important for vulnerable species of native wildlife. At least it won't be seen as a blanket ban by lazy parkies/ reserve managers making everyone pay for the actions of a few (ie if leashed dogs are ok effect wise).

[Xplora]

You take a photo of me in the middle of the bush without my permission and expect to lose your phone... Just saying.
But back on point about the dogs I never do that. I have a Kelpie who loves coming with me everywhere but NP is a no go. There's lots of dog walking areas....
Edit: I didn't read Sambars post above very well. You nailed it sorry

In order not to get a message from the mods, i'm putting this mildly.

Why do you find having your picture taken without permission warrants such a violent response? What is so terrible about having your photo taken? From an objective point of view. Because you reaction to want to bust someone's phone is way out of line and way over the top.

Taking a photo of a person in a public place is generally not illegal. I can see that if it were specifically aimed at children then there may be some concerns. Taking a photo of someone who is breaking the law is also not a problem but it could lead to a violent response from that person so you really should be prepared or take the photo without making it obvious. Of course those committing the violence will have to take their chances. Breaking the camera or phone is one charge and with it will be the assault which occurred when they took the device from you. With that you have a criminal record. Goodbye to your firearms licence if you have one. Sorry, no entry to the USA and some other countries. The consequences of a bad temper are far reaching and all that in front of the children you are seeking to protect from a photograph which is not violent. I am sorry for this being a little off topic. I have taken photographs of illegal activities before and used them for successful prosecutions but if you intend to do this you will also have to be prepared to give the evidence in court. The photo is not enough if the person decides to defend the matter. The offender also needs to be identified for any action to start so a photo of a person and a dog is not enough unless you have their name or a vehicle rego so is it worth the hassle? Dave Noble's approach is less offensive but even speaking to people who are doing the wrong thing can be dangerous. This I can tell you first hand.

[devoswitch]

I'm not willing to get into an argument about this it just isn't worth it sorry. You have great valid points and I reckon a lot of people would take them into consideration. I am however not one of them. I don't like people taking pictures of me and my kids etc. Sorry.

[neilmny]

Aside from the logical and moral reasons for not taking a dog into a conservation area, a national park....
In Victoria, the penalty for doing so is 15 penalty units. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/ ... 9/s32.html
The current value of a penalty unit in Victoria is $155.46 so $2331.90. http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/just ... nd+values/
The responsibility (and liability) is on the owner or the carer.

[Stroller]

I realise you'd need more than a photo and you may be in a position to get a license number. If you get back to the carpark before they do, just photograph all the number plates and and then if an issue goes to court, one of those cars will match the person most likely.

Anyway, I just put this idea out there as an option.

[puredingo]

I realise that a national park is a national park is a national park BUT is there room for discretion on this?

Some NPs are pristine, largely untouched beauties where it seems a crime that modern man enter let alone a dog. On the other hand some parks have ugly roads scarring back forth through them, flanked and spotted with private farms and inholdings harbouring many a loose domestic pet. Wild cattle and feral pests alike spreading weeds all over these poor over used parks....is on more frolicking spaniel going to matter?

[Champion_Munch]

I had never encountered a dog in a national park until about a year ago when I bumped into a lady jogging with her dog along the start of the border track at lamington national park (popular as far as QLD walking areas go). Unbelievably, she stopped and asked me to take a photo of her and the dog together!! When I explained to her that it was illegal to bring dogs into NPs, she told me she had driven all the way from Perth with her dog - like somehow that made it OK - and, after asking again about getting a photo, just kept on going.

Frustrating, but there's not much you can do when people don't care.

[The4wdZone]

Unfortunately some people are selfish and dont care and if they were fined by a ranger it would be the rangers fault, much te same as it would be the police officers fault if they got caught speeding.

The best thing you can do is reassure yourself they will get caught eventually if they do it often enough and inform a ranger if you see one.

[Xplora]

I don't like people taking pictures of me and my kids etc. Sorry.

Appreciated and we can just leave it there. No malice intended from me.

[sambar358]

When I was in the US it was common in most of the US & Canadian NP's to have areas where dogs on a lead were permitted and these were usually around the high-visitation areas where lots of short-term tourists came to visit. In the more remote parts of those Parks dogs were generally not allowed at all......and certainly no off-lead dogs were permitted anywhere. I thought that this was a fairly sensible arrangement and I didn't see anyone flouting these rules.....but these Parks also had a high Ranger presence for compliance which most if not all of our NP's do not.

Here.....it's "No Dogs In National Parks".....and that's it. Most public areas in Parks are well-signed and generally people are well-aware of what the requirements are but there'll always be some who'll choose to push things or claim ignorance as an excuse. I wouldn't bother to get into a confrontational situation as these days you never know where that'll end-up.....best just to make the effort when you get home to contact the regional Parks office and report it and most-likely once they get a few similar complaints they'll do some compliance patrols and issue a few PIN fines. Cheers

s358

[maddog]

I walk regularly in NP around the Central Coast and am increasingly noticing people bringing their dogs into the parks. Today I was out on a section of the GNW and near the Pearl Beach end people were happily walking along the NP tracks with dogs. Last week out along the another NP coastal track were runners with their dogs.

What is the harm?

I can remember a zoologist telling me that if a dog walks along a track - then many native animals will not cross that track for several weeks until the dog's scent has gone. Human scent is not seen as threatening as we are not their usual predator.

Yes, quite true. It's especially fraught during the breeding season (for those critters that have one), as it can totally disrupt normal patterns and even - in extreme situations - lead to a complete loss of the next generation in that area.
One of the things I point out to the 'but my dog would never chase/harm another animal' brigade.

What about dingoes and their crosses? Or are they not dogs anymore? Recycled nonsense on stilts.

Ah the dogs on a leash? If so , i wouldn't worry about it.

Agreed.

Taking a photo of a person in a public place is generally not illegal. I can see that if it were specifically aimed at children then there may be some concerns. Taking a photo of someone who is breaking the law is also not a problem...

And for those who assume the right to take photos of others without permission, it may be you who is committing a serious criminal offense. Under many circumstances you would need a warrant before taking such a liberty, without which you would be committing a felony which cannot be justified on the basis of reporting a misdemeanor. Such laws have been enacted to deal with, amongst others, perverts and busybodies. See, for example SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 (NSW).

Cheers,

Maddog.

[Xplora]

And for those who assume the right to take photos of others without permission, it may be you who is committing a serious criminal offense. Under many circumstances you would need a warrant before taking such a liberty, without which you would be committing a felony which cannot be justified on the basis of reporting a misdemeanor. Such laws have been enacted to deal with, amongst others, perverts and busybodies. See, for example SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 (NSW).

I thought we were done with this but since you have brought it up the act quoted is not relevant to the discussion. No warrant is required to take a photo in a public place of any person. You can even take a photo from a public place to a private place but there is legislation pertaining to the purpose of the photograph. THERE IS NO OFFENCE COMMITTED IF YOU TAKE A PHOTO OF A PERSON COMMITTING AN UNLAWFUL ACT IN A PUBLIC PLACE. If you believe there is then perhaps you should site it more specifically and I will send my sincere apology if I am wrong. Bear in mind the parameters of this discussion. Just because a child is in the photograph does not make it illegal either. A good summary of the laws pertaining to photography is found here. http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/upload ... s_2016.pdf

[slparker]

And for those who assume the right to take photos of others without permission, it may be you who is committing a serious criminal offense. Under many circumstances you would need a warrant before taking such a liberty, without which you would be committing a felony which cannot be justified on the basis of reporting a misdemeanor. Such laws have been enacted to deal with, amongst others, perverts and busybodies. See, for example SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 (NSW).

Cheers,

Maddog.

the act that you quote is the surveillence devices act. it does not pertain to taking photographs - but to surveillence devices.

how do you think that photographers get away with public photos in any location where there is a crowd present?

http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/upload ... s_2016.pdf

[maddog]

the act that you quote is the surveillence devices act. it does not pertain to taking photographs - but to surveillence devices.

how do you think that photographers get away with public photos in any location where there is a crowd present?

http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/upload ... s_2016.pdf

It depends on your intent really. No harm in taking photos of a street, building, landscape, etc. in which other people are present – I agree. But of course using an optical device (e.g. camera) to deliberately target and record the activities of others without consent, lawful excuse or authority, is quite a different matter. Used in such a manner a camera is most certainly a surveillance device.

Such behaviour is creepy, stalking always is, and in many cases is clearly within the scope of the legislation. Encouraging others to engage in such perverted behaviour is quite simply something that should not be condoned, particularly on a public forum.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[ange]

Hmmm quickly how the post turned to taking photos.

For those who offered a constructive contribution and stayed on topic, thank you I appreciate your insights.

ange

[skibug]

About a month ago I was amazed to see what looked like a family, with two kids around late Primary school age, about halfway between Garie Beach and Wattamolla in Royal National Park, carrying a small dog. I didn't say anything (they were going the other way), but was fairly surprised, partly because they must have seen plenty of "no dog" signs, partly because it was such a poor example for the kids, and partly because it must have been such a pain carrying the dog all that way.

So far as being photographed in a public place, wouldn't you first politely ask that the photos be deleted, before taking other more drastic actions? Who knows why someone would photograph a stranger and his kids on a bushwalk - maybe there was a big roo behind you, or some other innocent reason. I knew a guy ( a neighbour in the street) who had Ashbergers, who liked photographing people on the bus. His condition made it hard for him to understand the problem with this - he certainly did not have "bad" intentions, and he stopped when his mother asked him to.

You certainly do not have a right to take or damage the camera, just as you wouldn't have a right to take or hurt a dog from the owner, within a National Park, even though they may be doing the wrong thing.

Skibug.

[Xplora]

It depends on your intent really. No harm in taking photos of a street, building, landscape, etc. in which other people are present – I agree. But of course using an optical device (e.g. camera) to deliberately target and record the activities of others without consent, lawful excuse or authority, is quite a different matter. Used in such a manner a camera is most certainly a surveillance device.

Such behaviour is creepy, stalking always is, and in many cases is clearly within the scope of the legislation. Encouraging others to engage in such perverted behaviour is quite simply something that should not be condoned, particularly on a public forum.

By your definition all in car dash cams are illegal and they are not. Taking a photograph of a person committing an offence in a public place is not stalking and not creepy. I do agree that a camera falls into the definition of an optical recording device under the the Surveillance devices act but the use of the camera does not unless it was covertly set up to capture an offence. Again, keeping this relevant to the discussion, no offence occurs if you take a photo of someone with a dog in a national park. It seems more like some are condoning unlawful acts with the incorrect implication the person taking evidence is the one doing the wrong thing. Sorry Ange. There has been some interesting things I have learned about the affect of a dog in the park and I understand more why they should not be allowed. It is also important for people to understand their rights should they wish to take matters further. Both sides have been heard and people can make up their own mind about the legality and morality.