Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Dogs in Grampians


rodw

5-Mar-2012
11:20:38 PM

On 5/03/2012 Climbau wrote:
>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.

What would I know Im from NSW and not a local like stealth so my point is moot :)

I've had some great dealing with NPWS on the ground....but the front line rangers do not make policy...its the idiots in the offices who do and they will look at the data...you report stuff ...you provide data to them...you might fix it in the short term but could bite us on the arse in the long term..and our friendly rangers,stealth is so chummy with, will just have to enforce the rules the highers deem necessary.....hope Im wrong..


mattjr

5-Mar-2012
11:36:57 PM

On 5/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>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.
>
Hee x 3

If you knew who I was perhaps you could Introduce yourself.. but because you don't whats the point in childish comments?

What planet did you grow up on that allowed you to beleive it was ok to have a dog on park land? And now that you 'stand corrected' what gives you the right to pass judgement on this topic given your previous retardation of common sense?

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
12:00:24 AM

On 5/03/2012 Climbau wrote:
>And ODH, what happens when beating the shit out of offenders backfires
>and you become the bleeding mess in the leaf litter?

At what point did I suggest resorting to physical violence? (apart from booting the dog off a ledge)

Here are some proactive ideas which don't bring the authorities into it, and don't involve violence (unless you get busted in the act)

How about; scratching a small "no dogs in national parks" onto every panel on the car? Blocking up under the suspension of the drive wheels with wood, then letting the air out of the tyres, resulting in unexplained stationary burnouts as they try to leave......followed by a long walk? Dropping a really nasty shit, then using a stick to poke it into the cabin air intake?

Actually, letting the air out of the tyres is probably the only one of those I'd do to someone. I'd feel guilty if I cost them money, but have no problem making them walk 15km's to get a lift and a track pump........good weight loss, right? Would help their climbing in the long run :)


mattjr

6-Mar-2012
12:03:06 AM

i'm with you ODH, even if your fav colour is pink!?

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
12:07:17 AM

On 5/03/2012 The good Dr wrote:

>1. The group who bought the dog into the park did wrong, way wrong.

then

>I love it when opinions become fact. Reminds me of religion...

I don't think they did waaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong, that's just your opinion.


shortman

6-Mar-2012
12:22:50 AM

On 5/03/2012 mattjr wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>>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.
>>
>Hee x 3
>
>If you knew who I was perhaps you could Introduce yourself.. but because
>you don't whats the point in childish comments?
>
>What planet did you grow up on that allowed you to beleive it was ok to
>have a dog on park land? And now that you 'stand corrected' what gives
>you the right to pass judgement on this topic given your previous retardation
>of common sense?

I grew up on Earth if that is what you are asking. Here on Earth I learned to read. Also on planet Earth we have this thing called communication. Often this takes place with the asking and answering of questions.

Do u know what passing judgement really is mattjr? Your confused. Learn to read and communicate. It may just give your life the substance you have been looking for.

kieranl

6-Mar-2012
8:35:48 AM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>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?
I must apologise but it slipped my mind last night. My presence on closed roads in the Grampians last year was reported to Parks. I dobbed myself in (email 3/4/2011). I'm just an utter, utter bastard.

kieranl

6-Mar-2012
8:38:58 AM

And what's with all the outrage over the people saying they would like to "shoot the dog owner"? It's called a figure of speech. It's a pretty common way of expressing outrage by an exaggeration. Anyone who takes it seriously has really had a humour bypass.


Climbau

6-Mar-2012
9:00:13 AM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>At what point did I suggest resorting to physical violence?
Yeah well......... You didn't. But you should have, then I wouldn't have had to go back and re-read this poxy thread and come to the conclusion that I was wrong and you were right!!!! Damnit! :)

ZERO

6-Mar-2012
9:10:31 AM

The topic is Dogs in national parks, the Grampians.
It is not "lets see who can insult and offend by a lack of maturity".
Nor is it about driving on closed roads.


shortman

6-Mar-2012
9:19:10 AM

On 6/03/2012 kieranl wrote:
>And what's with all the outrage over the people saying they would like
>to "shoot the dog owner"? It's called a figure of speech. It's a pretty
>common way of expressing outrage by an exaggeration. Anyone who takes it
>seriously has really had a humour bypass.

Such figures of speech are also highly illegal. But you can ignore whatever rules u choose. I don't give a shit. They way u old school guys have carried on about the dog, seriously u have had a reality bypass.


shortman

6-Mar-2012
9:21:52 AM

On 6/03/2012 STEALTH wrote:
>The topic is Dogs in national parks, the Grampians.
>It is not "lets see who can insult and offend by a lack of maturity".
>Nor is it about driving on closed roads.
>
No it's not. It's about whether u and kieran can gain enough support to name and shame.

ZERO

6-Mar-2012
9:24:45 AM

>No it's not. It's about whether u and kieran can gain enough support to
>name and shame.

I think you should read the topic headline"Dogs in Grampians"


tnd

6-Mar-2012
9:26:20 AM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>...Dropping a
>really nasty shit, then using a stick to poke it into the cabin air intake?...

Ha ha, ODH, that is just fricken inspired!


shortman

6-Mar-2012
9:34:18 AM

On 6/03/2012 STEALTH wrote:
>>No it's not. It's about whether u and kieran can gain enough support to
>>name and shame.
>
>I think you should read the topic headline"Dogs in Grampians"

At least u got it right this time.

Wendy

6-Mar-2012
9:51:10 AM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero. wrote:
>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?

Can you make that 2, so I can call them Grampians?

Considering I've gotten all hot and bothered about this whole dog malarky before, I'm being very refrained. That might be because, much to my horror, i agree with you again. At this rate we're going to have to reassess a friendship based on childish arguments.

kieranl

6-Mar-2012
9:56:35 AM

On 6/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>>
>No it's not. It's about whether u and kieran can gain enough support to
>name and shame.
I'll just have to disagree with you on that one Dan. The original post was just about what happened at the cliff and our response. I'm somewhat bemused by the vehemence of the criticism but not particularly perturbed. Ultimately it's armchair criticism by people who weren't there so have no ability or right to judge.
If it actually serves to create more awareness among climbing pet owners it would be a good result.


ajfclark

6-Mar-2012
9:59:51 AM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>...Dropping a really nasty shit, then using a stick to poke it into the cabin air intake?...

If pressed for time, piss can work well too.

Wendy

6-Mar-2012
10:01:35 AM

Oh, all right, I give in, I'm not that good at being refrained (except I'm now up to a whole 10 days rest on my shoulder, I think that's a record, someone should pat me on the back).

What's the point of sending photos to PV anyway? What are they going to do about it? They can't issue fines based on photos sent in. There's no obvious connection between the cars and the climbers - the cars in the photos could be anyone's. And strangely enough, I don't think they have the resources to go and identify and chase down the people and the dog from the photos either. So it's useless in every way except bring it to the attention of PV that some climbers are numpties. So we come back to proactive intercommunity methods of dealing with dog owning numpties.

ithomas

6-Mar-2012
10:04:18 AM

Everyone has their own level of dobbing tolerance. Some people never dob, even though heinous crime or discrimination may have been observed. They are juveniles. Others dob all the time. They are moral weaklings. I would happily report bullies who obviously flout reasonable, rational rules which are there to protect the ecology and the park experience. Even so, I sometimes find myself in the ambiguous area between reporting and not reporting. The use of bolts and chalk in National Parks is one such issue. Many here would probably regard that sentiment as anti-climbing or ultra-trad or old fashioned. It's none of those things, I simply dislike chalk and I despise sport climbs in National Parks (this is not a hijack, I simply highlight the irony of being worried about a dog while accepting considerable environmental and visual damage to cliffs).

It's a pity that the term 'dobbing' has been so debased. It's a little bit similar to how conservatives have manipulated the term 'political correctness' to such an extent that it is now a term of abuse. When I was growing up the term dobbing was used in the sense that you never dobbed in a mate but you had an obligation to dob in a stranger who was doing the wrong thing. In other words, you would have been doing the right thing. Now it seems it's wrong to dob in anyone at anytime! How times change. Report the dog owners and hope they learn a lesson.

There are 139 messages in this topic.