Bushwalk Australia

Hey guys,
I'm new to Tassie and was hoping to do some hiking with my dog like I have in other parts of Australia. Unfortunately for my dog he's not allowed in State/National parks. Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions of mountains hikes we could that fall outside these areas?
Cheers

Hi - welcome to Tas!
not sure which area you are in, but there are so many great places that are dog-friendly. The State Forest areas include Mount Roland, Black Bluff, St Valentines Peak, Mount Murchison, Mt Farrell, Central Plateau (Western Creek track/Parsons/Higgs Track), Mother Cummings Peak, most of the Dial Ranges, Quamby Bluff, Projection Bluff, the Tarkine, most of the Wellington Park to name just a few. The view from all is much better with a dog at your feet! Just avoid actual National Parks and you will be fine.

Also this link is useful http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=494

Mount Murchison last week

G'day Sloppy,

Welcome indeed. Hope you find some great places to walk with your pooch. But I'm afraid it's not so simple.

shadowofadoubt wrote:Hi - welcome to Tas!
not sure which area you are in, but there are so many great places that are dog-friendly. The State Forest areas include Mount Roland, Black Bluff, St Valentines Peak, Mount Murchison, Mt Farrell, Central Plateau (Western Creek track/Parsons/Higgs Track), Mother Cummings Peak, most of the Dial Ranges, Quamby Bluff, Projection Bluff, the Tarkine, most of the Wellington Park to name just a few. Just avoid actual National Parks and you will be fine.

Hmm... unfortunately that's not the case. There are heaps of conservation areas and other reserves where dogs are definitely not allowed - including a number you've listed. E.g. dogs can be shot if seen on Mt Roland.

See http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=400
Visitor's Guide to Tasmania's Reserves

In addition to 19 national parks, the Parks and Wildlife Service manages over 800 other reserves within the State....
Many reserves protect rare or endangered species of plants and animals

National park fees do not apply to these reserves. Dogs and other pets are not allowed in most reserves. The listing below represents just a small sample of the more popular reserves. For a full description of the various categories of reserves, see our full listing.

'stand aside, your dog requires shooting'
Central Plateau Sloppy, you can ask for a permit from parks mole creek. Where are you?, some tracks open to dog following on Wello I believe?
I'm a fan of dogs but if Murchison is out, which as far as I know it is, then that photo above really should be as well? Lot's of reserves, some set aside for good fauna conservation purpose, freerange dogs (especially) are just not a good idea.

Meander falls, Ben Nevis, quamby bluff are all areas I've been with my old dog. I had no idea whether they were restricted. It seems strange that a dog could be banned a couple of k's from logging coupes...

Ah ..there is actually a sign at the walk register at mount roland specifically permitting dogs so that is not true at all. If someone threatened me or my dogs with a gun while walking there I know who would be in more trouble! I am pretty shocked at that being written on this forum actually especially as it is false.

And I might add that none of the walks listed give any indication at all that dogs are not allowed. You can get a permit for the WHA at Mole Creek.

Hi shadowofadoubt,

Sorry I wasn't meaning to offend. I was shocked when I was told by a local friend who had a lot of contact with various relevant departments that our dog could have been shot there (quite legally), so it wasn't a good idea to take her there again. I have every confidence that he knew what he was talking about. I'm surprised that that has changed, as part of it was/is classified as a Conservation Area - but if there's a sign allowing dogs now, something must have changed.

But still, the Parks website currently says that dogs are not allowed in 'most reserves' - so just steering clear of National Parks would potentially land us and our 4-legged friends in trouble in a lot of places.

Dogs are allowed on Roland and have been for many years. I took my dogs up there 8 or 9 years ago. However I would have to agree with Nuts and highly doubt that they are allowed on Mount Murchison.

shadowofadoubt wrote:Ah ..there is actually a sign at the walk register at mount roland specifically permitting dogs so that is not true at all.

Do the dogs need to be on leash, shadowofadoubt?

MickyB wrote:

shadowofadoubt wrote:Ah ..there is actually a sign at the walk register at mount roland specifically permitting dogs so that is not true at all.

Do the dogs need to be on leash, shadowofadoubt?

I think the wording is "under effective control" or words to that effect which is basic common sense anyway.

Regarding Murchison, does anyone actually have any evidence they are not allowed? Because I always check before heading out and for Murchison there is nothing online, and no signage at the walk itself, and it is a Regional Reserve, not a conservation area. On the parks website link I provided above, it states "However, dogs are welcome in many Conservation Areas, Regional Reserves and Nature Recreation Areas, and some State Reserves" and "There are many places throughout the State outside national parks and nature reserves where dogs are allowed. Some reserves such as Regional Reserves and Nature Recreation Areas may have designated areas where dogs are allowed". (Note how highlighting things in officious red text is unnecessary!)

In my opinion if it is not a National Park, and there is no signage or indication otherwise, then the default position would be that they are allowed (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary). The Mount Murchison track is very steep and has very little vegetation, it is not a place that is teeming with native wildlife.

As an aside, the point of hiking with your dog is to hike, not hunt and terrorise native wildlife which mine would never do - I am a died-in-the-wool greenie, with a particularly strong aversion to being threatened with guns! And as for dogs being shot 'quite legally' inside a Reserve, who do we think has permission to be wandering around Reserves with public walking tracks with loaded firearms anyway?! That is certainly NOT legal.

shadowofadoubt wrote:And as for dogs being shot 'quite legally' inside a Reserve, who do we think has permission to be wandering around Reserves with public walking tracks with loaded firearms anyway?!

Rangers. When they get reports of dogs being someplace where they aren't permitted, for instance. Especially if there have been feral dogs haunting the area.

It was a long time ago, but I can still recall the furore about poor old Dicky Dwyer shooting someone's pet cocker spaniel that had been left - tied to a tree - just inside the park boundary. Dicky was on a dog hunt because a pack of ferals had been causing all sorts of bother in that area. He was too far away to tell the dog was tied up, but it was definitely inside the NP, so he took it out. The owner was not happy, even though he was technically at fault. Too late for his ranting and raving to do the dog any good.

north-north-west wrote:

shadowofadoubt wrote:And as for dogs being shot 'quite legally' inside a Reserve, who do we think has permission to be wandering around Reserves with public walking tracks with loaded firearms anyway?!

Rangers. When they get reports of dogs being someplace where they aren't permitted, for instance. Especially if there have been feral dogs haunting the area.

It was a long time ago, but I can still recall the furore about poor old Dicky Dwyer shooting someone's pet cocker spaniel that had been left - tied to a tree - just inside the park boundary. Dicky was on a dog hunt because a pack of ferals had been causing all sorts of bother in that area. He was too far away to tell the dog was tied up, but it was definitely inside the NP, so he took it out. The owner was not happy, even though he was technically at fault. Too late for his ranting and raving to do the dog any good.

Whoever Dicky Dwyer was he lived up to his name. He was a Dick. Period.

Actually NNW, I should temper my post.
Going on what you said only, he was a dick.
A dog tied up just inside the boundary obviously was not running around killing wildlife. If he could not see a restraint , he could not see (for example) someone laying in the shade resting.
C,mon, add more to the story that doesn't make Dick look like a dick.

To the OP, a search of this site (start with 'Companion Dogs') brings up other threads with good informative links.

He was a Ranger. He had ongoing reports of a pack of feral dogs in a part of the NP (I think it was in the Arm River/Maggs area, but can't be sure of that). He was out for a number of days, checking the area, hunting for signs of the pack. He found traces, including mangled wildlife. He heard barking, saw a dog. It was definitely within the Park boundary. The owner had tied it to a tree with a note on its collar while he went for a walk, but Dicky didn't know that.
So he took careful aim and shot it, from a half km or so away. He was an old-school bushie, and a *&%$#! good shot - there was no danger to anyone. A person is a lot more visible than a thin bit of rope.
From memory he and the dog's owner arrived at the tree at about the same time, whereupon all hell broke loose.

And I really don't appreciate the slur on Mr Dwyer. He was a damn good Ranger (if you leave aside his difficulty with paperwork), who even then was something of a legend within the service. He only retired within the last five years or so.
What was he supposed to do? If he'd tried stalking the thing he could easily have missed his chance at nailing it. He had evidence of feral dogs in that area. And if there's a *&^%$#@! involved in the story, it's the owner who takes his dog into a NP and then leaves it unattended within the boundary.

And the whole idea of telling the story is simply to point out the potential dangers of taking a dog somewhere it isn't permitted. I doubt whether something like this would be likely to happen now, but you can't discount it. Rangers can and do make patrols of this type when there are reports of feral dogs.

And for those 'my dog is kept under control and not allowed to chase animals' dog owners - there are studies showing that the simple presence of a dog - which is, after all, a carnivorous predator - can disrupt local wildlife, even if the dog doesn't do anything.

north-north-west wrote: And if there's a *&^%$#@! involved in the story, it's the owner who takes his dog into a NP and then leaves it unattended within the boundary.

This
Ranger is not the dick in this story
If there was a pack of feral dogs and they found the poor thing tied to a tree then it would have been a lot messier end than an accurate bullet.

north-north-west wrote:And for those 'my dog is kept under control and not allowed to chase animals' dog owners - there are studies showing that the simple presence of a dog - which is, after all, a carnivorous predator - can disrupt local wildlife, even if the dog doesn't do anything.

There are also studies that show that the simple presence of people and the very existence of these artificial tracks themselves also disrupt local wildlife. So we all really should stay at home

shadowofadoubt wrote:

north-north-west wrote:And for those 'my dog is kept under control and not allowed to chase animals' dog owners - there are studies showing that the simple presence of a dog - which is, after all, a carnivorous predator - can disrupt local wildlife, even if the dog doesn't do anything.

There are also studies that show that the simple presence of people and the very existence of these artificial tracks themselves also disrupt local wildlife.

True. But this is like the campfire debate - you minimise the impact by eliminating anything not essential to your passage through.

Yes. Though a walked dog is traveling with The apex predator.

I'm a big fan of forthright public involvement, information, consultation (even), not management by frowning, not pissweak ignorance..
where was I.. oh, yeah, The regulations should be clear and available, however difficult that becomes. In this case for dog owners as much as other users. If the budget wont stretch to signage, it's hard to believe a few extra words in a website or blog is too much to ask?

People using regional parks, caring about them, inclusion, these things hold such potential for conservation generally.

I would expect the default, like most law and regulation, would matter at the end of the day rather than individual interpretation. There is some element of 'how many dogs/walkers are appropriate', if indeed they are allowed (now). Iv'e asked (about Murcho/Farrell specifically) and hopefully get some reply.

SoaD, is that a Smithy in the lead? Lovely dogs smithies!

doogs wrote:Dogs are allowed on Roland and have been for many years. I took my dogs up there 8 or 9 years ago. However I would have to agree with Nuts and highly doubt that they are allowed on Mount Murchison.

Yes Doogs we took dogs (on leads) up Mt Claude track in the late 90s so I was surprised to see this sign 3 weeks ago.
Incidentally we met a delightful and apparently well behaved dog on the track this time.

The larger sign on the other side of the track in the registration box states dogs are permitted under effective control. Unfortunately I only took a photo of the map...not the sign. I was only up there a month ago too.

So you have one sign saying no dogs, and another saying they're OK? Someone needs to make up their mind.

hmm, yeah, forget rumour, we now have a 'scoop'?
Luckily the Ban only applies to dock tailed Irish Terriers.
I blame Dan Aykroyd! (Aykroydian school of sneaky signage)

north-north-west wrote:He was a Ranger. He had ongoing reports of a pack of feral dogs in a part of the NP (I think it was in the Arm River/Maggs area, but can't be sure of that). He was out for a number of days, checking the area, hunting for signs of the pack. He found traces, including mangled wildlife. He heard barking, saw a dog. It was definitely within the Park boundary. The owner had tied it to a tree with a note on its collar while he went for a walk, but Dicky didn't know that.
So he took careful aim and shot it, from a half km or so away. He was an old-school bushie, and a *&%$#! good shot - there was no danger to anyone. A person is a lot more visible than a thin bit of rope.
From memory he and the dog's owner arrived at the tree at about the same time, whereupon all hell broke loose.

And I really don't appreciate the slur on Mr Dwyer. He was a damn good Ranger (if you leave aside his difficulty with paperwork), who even then was something of a legend within the service. He only retired within the last five years or so.
What was he supposed to do? If he'd tried stalking the thing he could easily have missed his chance at nailing it. He had evidence of feral dogs in that area. And if there's a *&^%$#@! involved in the story, it's the owner who takes his dog into a NP and then leaves it unattended within the boundary.

Thanks NNW, I know you care.
I take back my slur against Mr Dwyer.
Mark.

Perhaps the crossed dog indicates that dogs NOT on a leash are banned?

Thanks for the suggestions guys cheers!

There's dogs and there's dogs... both 4 & 2 legged

greyim wrote:There's dogs and there's dogs... both 4 & 2 legged

Lol... agreed! and the same could be said for 'apex predators'.

Had to share this link a friend sent today http://www.boredpanda.com/dog-adventure ... BPFacebook especially the video at the end. That is what I am talking about!

I like this story: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-3418 ... w_facebook