Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Dogs in Grampians


kuu

5-Mar-2012
5:31:11 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>
>However, one dog in a park for one day is likely to have a negligable
>impact on the place. So a mature response would be to; try and convince
>the climbers in question not to do it again, maybe go so far as to 'out'
>them on Chocky, and definitely not dibber dob to the rangers as this could
>lead to very minor positive outcomes for the park but quite major negative
>outcomes for climbers in general.
>
Ah, ODH, basically you're with us in principle after all.

So it comes down to being a matter of whether these people can offend for just one day at a time (although technically breaking the law anyway), or only abide by the legal requirements when it suits them?


Doug

5-Mar-2012
5:44:48 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>Although I'm pretty unimpressed by folk bringing their little poochycoo
>into national parks, I gotta say the dibber dobbers don't exactly garner
>a whole lot of sympathy either.

Why is it not surprising that you take this stance, ODH? On the surface a rebel, but really a full on line-toer with the "dibber dobbers" concept. Grow up. The establishment can and should be used when appropriate.
>
>Is it really a good idea to send photos of climbers taking dogs into a
>national park to the parks people?

Yes.

Or are you cutting off your nose to
>spite your face?

No.
>
>By all means, call bullshit on the idiots, tell them what selfish c--ts
>they are, boot the dog off the belay ledge.......whatever. But taking photos
>and sending rego numbers to the authorities? I thought most people had
>that beaten out of them during primary school.

Ahhh. Two interesting concepts here. Deal with people on a personal basis. Not a bad idea generally but, given the behaviour of said "c*nts" in pretending that they didn't have a dog, etc. etc, probably a waste of time.
The "beaten out of them during primary school" is a disturbing notion, rather Hitlerian in its outlook. Thankfully, these resilient folk seem to have outlasted you and your mob, ODH.

citationx

5-Mar-2012
5:59:57 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 citationx wrote:
>>
>>Seemingly you didn't even need to say how different they were, you just
>>palmed it off by not even acknowledging it as a serious question. You're
>>better than I thought!!
>
>I honestly have no idea what the fuch you're talking about. I just assume
>that you're either trolling or a retard or maybe both. If you would like
>to explain how taking a dog into a national park in victoria is the same
>as carjacking a geriatric war vet in the UK (or US, I forget which), please
>go ahead.

I guess the point is that in both scenarios, a law has been broken, and in both cases "turning a blind eye" probably isn't the way to go. But you have real problems with a vet being assaulted than you do having a simple victorian park law being broken.
The funny thing is that a few people think like you, which if you want to get all philosophical about it, is contributing to the demise of a society that isn't driven by such stringent moral and ethical institutions anymore, like religious ones.
Just because you perceive the break in the law to "have little real consequence", you can't get on your high horse and tell everyone else to screw off and settle down, as more and more laws start getting ignored, you end up in a pretty sht society. There is no difference between the two scenarios other than the importance we place on them (probably because most people value human life more than other).

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
6:00:21 PM

On 5/03/2012 kuu wrote:
>Ah, ODH, basically you're with us in principle after all.
>
I'm with you on the principle of not taking dogs into parks, I'm not with you on the principle of shooting people, I'm very much not with you on the principle of getting climbing banned in order to combat rudeness!

>So it comes down to being a matter of whether these people can offend
>for just one day at a time (although technically breaking the law anyway),
>or only abide by the legal requirements when it suits them?
>
Well.....again, I'd ask what outcome you're hoping for? My suggestion is that the best outcome would be that the climbers in question refrain from bringing their dog in future, and that the parks people don't add a black mark to the column labelled "climbers".

If you want to bring "abiding by legal requirements" into it, how about Kierans admitted rule breaking with regard to accessing closed bits of the Grampians last year? Should people have been taking photos of him and sending his rego number to the authorities? After all, if you're a stickler for the rules, you don't get to pick and choose, do you?

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
6:04:52 PM

On 5/03/2012 citationx wrote:

>I guess the point is that in both scenarios, a law has been broken, and
>in both cases "turning a blind eye" probably isn't the way to go. But you
>have real problems with a vet being assaulted than you do having a simple
>victorian park law being broken.
>The funny thing is that a few people think like you, which if you want
>to get all philosophical about it, is contributing to the demise of a society
>that isn't driven by such stringent moral and ethical institutions anymore,
>like religious ones.
>Just because you perceive the break in the law to "have little real consequence",
>you can't get on your high horse and tell everyone else to screw off and
>settle down, as more and more laws start getting ignored, you end up in
>a pretty sht society. There is no difference between the two scenarios
>other than the importance we place on them (probably because most people
>value human life more than other).

I'm pretty sure that the Stugang-borg has now assimilated citationx...........really, this is too nuts to be serious. Taking a dog into a national park is destroying society?!?

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
6:19:59 PM

On 5/03/2012 Doug wrote:

>The establishment can and should be used when appropriate.

So you've decided that its appropriate in this instance, but not every instance? What makes you think that your judgement is better than mine?

>Yes.

Expand on that please

>No.

And on that

>
>Ahhh. Two interesting concepts here. Deal with people on a personal basis.
>Not a bad idea generally but, given the behaviour of said "c*nts" in pretending
>that they didn't have a dog, etc. etc, probably a waste of time.

Again, the main thing which seems to be pissing you off isn't the dog in the park, but the smartarse response to the old farts. Being a smartarse in a national park isn't against any rules!

>The "beaten out of them during primary school" is a disturbing notion,
>rather Hitlerian in its outlook. Thankfully, these resilient folk seem
>to have outlasted you and your mob, ODH.

Well, now that you've brought Hitler into it, I think that dobbing your neighbours in to the authorities for very minor infraction of the rules, even though it doesn't affect you personally, is something he was quite in favour of!


E. Wells

5-Mar-2012
6:49:03 PM

Look the real question is whether they were from the blue mountains and climb above grade 29, if so then its fine, whats with all the sinkhole negativity , haters be hatin. Dogs love, so love life and chill with all the Nature crap. Crank hard, venga venga.


MisterGribble

5-Mar-2012
7:24:25 PM

48 posts in just under 7 hours - is this a Chockstone record ?


Doug

5-Mar-2012
7:39:19 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 Doug wrote:

>Again, the main thing which seems to be pissing you off isn't the dog
>in the park, but the smartarse response to the old farts. Being a smartarse
>in a national park doesn't break any rules!

No. It's both aspects. Taking the dog in is bad enough, but not be adult enough to admit they shouldn't be doing it, and to lie about about having done it means that you're not going to get very far reasoning with these sorts of folks. In contrast, I spoke to some people about having a fire right next to the "No Fires Here" sign in the North Campground at The Piles and at least one person was adult enough to acknowledge that they were in the wrong and they stopped.
>
>>The "beaten out of them during primary school" is a disturbing notion,
>>rather Hitlerian in its outlook. Thankfully, these resilient folk seem
>>to have outlasted you and your mob, ODH.
>
>Well, now that you've brought Hitler into it, I think that dobbing your
>neighbours in to the authorities for very minor infraction of the rules,
>even though it doesn't affect you personally, is something he was quite
>in favour of!
If they had admitted they were in the wrong, Kieran et al probably wouldn't have bothered with notifying PV. And your use of the pejorative term "dobbing" is just another way of putting a juvenile twist on things.
Re bringing Hitler into it, one of his main and most brilliant strategies was the formation of the Hitler Youth, an early recognition of the powerful force of peer pressure that exists amongst the young. Your notion of people having the option of telling someone who can do something "beaten out of them during primary school" is one of the worst forms of bullying that exists.

Perhaps most of what you write here on Chocky is mere off-the-cuff spray and the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say to ourselves and each other "Oh, there goes ODH again." but ton the other hand, maybe not ...

widewetandslippery

5-Mar-2012
7:41:40 PM

just had an update from the neighbours who have a golden retrever that " is ok " that was off leash last night.. Mary was muzzled and is fine

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
8:30:23 PM

On 5/03/2012 Doug wrote:
>
>No. It's both aspects. Taking the dog in is bad enough, but not be adult
>enough to admit they shouldn't be doing it, and to lie about about having
>done it means that you're not going to get very far reasoning with these
>sorts of folks.

You're judging people based on how they respond to your authority......that's fine, we all do it to a certain extent. But don't deceive yourself about the result; People who take their dogs into national parks and are polite and submissive are ok, those who take their dogs into national parks and are smartarses need to be reported and fined. Therefore, the offence which gets them fined is the smartarsery.

>If they had admitted they were in the wrong, Kieran et al probably wouldn't
>have bothered with notifying PV.

Exactly! All they had to do was fake being sorry about it. There's really nothing simpler than getting around old coots once you realise that they're all gagging to be treated with respect. Pretend to accept their 'authority' and admire their 'superior knowledge and wisdom', and they'll let you get away with murder.

>Re bringing Hitler into it, one of his main and most brilliant strategies
>was the formation of the Hitler Youth, an early recognition of the powerful
>force of peer pressure that exists amongst the young.

Yes, and can anyone tell me what was the most reviled and historically condemned behavior of the Hitler Youth?

>Perhaps most of what you write here on Chocky is mere off-the-cuff spray
>and the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say to ourselves
>and each other "Oh, there goes ODH again." but ton the other hand, maybe
>not ...

Perhaps you should try putting together a counter argument which is sensible and logical?

kieranl

5-Mar-2012
8:39:25 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
> lots of stuff
Somewhat of a dog's breakfast.
And yes, if I was found driving on a closed road without reason I would expect to be fined.

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
8:43:06 PM

Right. So, when you were accessing closed areas in the Gramps last year without reason, how would have felt if a member of the public had dobbed you in to the rangers?

Kieranl

5-Mar-2012
9:30:58 PM

If such happened I woul probably be pretty annoyed with myself, as on the even occasions when I have been caught speeding.


Climbau

5-Mar-2012
9:44:57 PM

Not too happy about dogs or cats in national parks or being off leash in public spaces for that matter.
And ODH, what happens when beating the shit out of offenders backfires and you become the bleeding mess in the leaf litter?
I understand Rodw's reluctance to involve PV, but surely (perhaps naively) a proactive approach with PV is preferrable. Besides, photos do mot necessarily need to show the offenders as climbers.
I admit that I am no angel, but I still am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions and glad to see the same in Kieranl.

Prhaps STEALTH has communicated with PV staff who are usergroup sympathetic and are happy to leave climbing out of it, afterallvthe fine issued would only need to state the presence of the dog and not the activity.
And for the record, i have had only good encounters with PV and NPWS staff. Even in relation to climber access concerns.

Wendy

5-Mar-2012
9:59:27 PM

Are people struggling with reading comprehension here? Stealth wants to shoot people. Damo is making comments about primary school behaviour patterns. Just where should the outrage be directed?

Jayford4321

5-Mar-2012
10:08:19 PM

Relax Wen.
Tell you what. If you can refrain from getting all hot and bothered with posting on this thread, I 'll buy you a dog and you can call it Grampian, OK?


The good Dr

5-Mar-2012
10:12:53 PM

Jeez, what a wound up bunch we are today.

1. The group who bought the dog into the park did wrong, way wrong.
2. It is highly likely that it is not a one off.
3. People are very defensive about their cute litle animal companions and can be unpredictable in their response when they feel that poochy or meow-meow are threatened.
4. Four against two is not great odds and we all know that climbers from Nati these days can do interpretive dance, but cannot fight.
5. Depending how the informations was sent to Parks Vic identifying the perpetrators as climbers may be nigh on impossible. Maybe they will identify them as foreigners and ban all foreigners from the park.
6. conjecture about dibber dobbering is doofoid. Maybe parks will ban all climbers as a result as they are obviously irresponsible. Maybe parks will give climbers deputy ranger status as they are displaying responsibility not seen from other park visitors. Maybe they Wong give a rats. Keep up the conjecture though as it appears that the points of view are all fact. I love it when opinions become fact. Reminds me of religion...


mattjr

5-Mar-2012
10:37:19 PM

On 5/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>No u shouldn't post them here. U should always refrain from being a wanker.

Have you ever taken a dog into a national park shortman?


shortman

5-Mar-2012
10:51:43 PM

On 5/03/2012 mattjr wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>>No u shouldn't post them here. U should always refrain from being a wanker.
>
>Have you ever taken a dog into a national park shortman?

More times than you can imagine. However, reasonable people with reasonable social skills were able to explain to me why I really shouldn't. So now I don't.

Not precious folk who are in denial about the moral decline of society in general, let alone climbers.

Really though mattjr I encourage you to bring this up face to face when you next see my dog and I down at Burnley. I'd hate to think you have had a grudge the past 12 months without the opportunity to vent it.

There are 139 messages in this topic.