Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Dogs in Grampians


shortman

6-Mar-2012
10:09:32 AM

On 6/03/2012 kieranl wrote:
>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.

Two words: public forum

And your right, u were not part of the name and shame campaign.

And for what it's worth, being either for or against a law, or being present or not, are not neccessary requirements for passing judgement.

simey

6-Mar-2012
10:18:04 AM

On 5/03/2012 The good Dr wrote:
>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.

I would like to distance myself from this stereotype.

bones

6-Mar-2012
10:25:14 AM

On 6/03/2012 simey wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 The good Dr wrote:
>>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.
>
>I would like to distance myself from this stereotype.
>

It's not that easy, I think you would need to prove it


The good Dr

6-Mar-2012
10:36:43 AM

On 6/03/2012 bones wrote:
>On 6/03/2012 simey wrote:
>>On 5/03/2012 The good Dr wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>I would like to distance myself from this stereotype.
>>
>
>It's not that easy, I think you would need to prove it

By interprative dance.

Wendy

6-Mar-2012
10:57:06 AM

I think Simey's dancing is quite easy to interpret.

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
11:56:47 AM

On 6/03/2012 Wendy wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero. wrote:

.........

> That might be because, much to my horror,
>i agree with you again.

Note the dot after my name there Wendy. The Stugangborg have yet another identity


nmonteith

6-Mar-2012
11:57:03 AM

Just a short moderator warning - please stop the personal attacks, insults and veiled threats directed at other forum users. It's the usual offenders - please try and talk about the broad issues rather than attacking the messengers.

Wendy

6-Mar-2012
12:01:52 PM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 6/03/2012 Wendy wrote:
>>On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero. wrote:
>
>.........
>
>> That might be because, much to my horror,
>>i agree with you again.
>
>Note the dot after my name there Wendy. The Stugangborg have yet another
>identity

Awesome, then Stuart is going to buy Grampians for me. I need them as puppies Stuart, because they have to be trained to accept the dominance of my cat. Then we can all 4 go walkies in National Parks. Along with the goldfish, who definitately has a right to be taken out as well.

Sadly, Damo, I think you actually did post most of the stuff I was agreeing with.


shortman

6-Mar-2012
12:09:47 PM

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
12:29:07 PM

On 6/03/2012 ithomas wrote:
> I would
>happily report bullies.........

You do present a pretty good argument, but I had to laugh at this bit since your name (when mentioned in canberra climbing circles) usually shares a sentence with the word bully.

>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).

I can see the whole anti-chalk thing on bits of rock which don't get washed, but do you still care about people using it on slabs? How can chalk possibly affect you or anyone else if it gets washed off every time it rains?
>
>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.

Really? I was brought up to mind my own business, unless the person was causing harm. Now, fair enough, the situation in question is up for debate, but what about victimless infractions? Would you snitch on someone for smoking outdoors in a non-designated area? How about jaywalking? Riding a bike without a helmet? Rigging a tyro on Straddie?

There is a segment of the population who just love getting others in trouble for their own gratification, and snitch on people for all of the above. I don't have a whole lot of respect for such individuals.


nmonteith

6-Mar-2012
12:31:27 PM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>I can see the whole anti-chalk thing on bits of rock which don't get washed,
>but do you still care about people using it on slabs? How can chalk possibly
>affect you or anyone else if it gets washed off every time it rains?

Chalk does bleach the rock killing lichen though. You only have to look at somewhere like Piddo to see the great white streaks down all the face routes.

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
12:45:08 PM

On 6/03/2012 nmonteith wrote:
>
>Chalk does bleach the rock killing lichen though. You only have to look
>at somewhere like Piddo to see the great white streaks down all the face
>routes.

I dunno mate, chalk is fairly chemically inert. I reckon traces of aluminium from the gear or just the thousands of pedalling feet are more likely suspects. And, given that the pre-climber state of those routes was dirt choked, vegetation filled, non-lines..........I hardly think that a bit of bleaching is something the non-chalkies can whine about and gain any sympathy.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

6-Mar-2012
1:02:43 PM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 6/03/2012 nmonteith wrote:
>>
>>Chalk does bleach the rock killing lichen though. You only have to look
>>at somewhere like Piddo to see the great white streaks down all the face
>>routes.
>
>I dunno mate, chalk is fairly chemically inert. I reckon traces of aluminium
>from the gear or just the thousands of pedalling feet are more likely suspects.
>And, given that the pre-climber state of those routes was dirt choked,
>vegetation filled, non-lines..........I hardly think that a bit of bleaching
>is something the non-chalkies can whine about and gain any sympathy.

Back in the day (2005) WM posted some good pics of chalk damage at Mt Piddington(?) when this debate was had... but unfortunately it looks like the pic-links have broken(?) though that thread is still interesting for the info it contains.

Dogs in the Grampians? ~> Good thing they are not pumas eh?
At 93 posts, I have run out of popcorn in the viewing gallery!
_{Loved ODH's line about ww&s linear logic! Heh, heh, heh.}


nmonteith

6-Mar-2012
1:09:35 PM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>I dunno mate, chalk is fairly chemically inert. I reckon traces of aluminium
>from the gear or just the thousands of pedalling feet are more likely suspects.

I know nothing about chemisrty - but I do see that the bleach marks usually form streaks down below the hold - where no one would actually be holding or stepping. So I have always presumed that something in the chalk is killing the black stuff on the rock when it washes down in rain.

ZERO

6-Mar-2012
1:16:35 PM

Pretty amazing how this has gone from dogs in the Grampians (an infringement of the National Parks Act, incurring a fine of around $160 per dog per day, regardfless of whether the dog owner is rude, polite or indifferent) to use of chalk in the Blue Mtns or somewhere else (currently not illegal anywhere in Australia to my knowledge).

Dogs impact on wildlife just by their presence, smell, urine and faeces.
If people want to take their dog climbing may I suggest moving to the US where it is allowed.
They help supplement the diet of grizzlies and wolves.

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
1:19:03 PM

Yeah, I'm not debating the bleaching M9. I reckon the aluminium from your nuts and cams is just as likely to be the culprit though. You just have to look at Peroxide Blonde to see what Zinc does.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

6-Mar-2012
1:20:14 PM

On 6/03/2012 STEALTH wrote:
>Dogs impact on wildlife just by their presence, smell, urine and faeces.

... & people don't?

Hmm.
I have always wondered why the blue-tongue lizards, red bellied black snakes and echidnas keep trying to get into my dogs enclosed courtyard; ... maybe it's because they are tricked into thinking it environmentally friendly due to the blue wrens, eastern spinebills and silver-eyes nesting in there too, ... or possibly just the frogs* in the pond there instead!

(*This would be the main snake enticement I'd expect).


Eduardo Slabofvic

6-Mar-2012
1:27:24 PM

I would just like to point out that I have been doing an interpretive dance in the Butoh style (where no audience is required) all morning which has successfully resolved this issue in a way that satisfies all parties, but as it cannot translate to the written word without losing essential elements of meaning, it has been lost forever.

One Day Hero

6-Mar-2012
1:31:09 PM

On 6/03/2012 STEALTH wrote:
>dogs in the Grampians (an infringement
>of the National Parks Act, incurring a fine of around $160 per dog per
>day, regardfless of whether the dog owner is rude, polite or indifferent)

We're discussing related issues, one of which is policing of infringements of National Parks Act. When you used to be a ranger, it was your job to hand out fines to people who broke the rules. Now that you're an ex-ranger, it sounds like you're having trouble letting go of that authority.

ZERO

6-Mar-2012
1:42:30 PM

On 6/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:

>We're discussing related issues, one of which is policing of infringements
>of National Parks Act. When you used to be a ranger, it was your job to
>hand out fines to people who broke the rules. Now that you're an ex-ranger,
>it sounds like you're having trouble letting go of that authority.

I was never a PhD candidate, but dogs and chalk being related???
What evolutionary tree do they branch from?

As far as letting go of my "authority", that was something I gladly relinquished.

The dog owners were knowingly breaking the law, made obvious by their attempts to hide said dog inside a jacket, and their unwillingness to talk in a rational manner with other climbers.
This is known as "Failing the Attitude Test".
As a ranger I could have written several fines for dogs, but as all were willing to talk and leave the park I chose not to.

Judging from the comments and insults on this forum, the majority of Chockstoners have failed the attitude test, and this will have a far greater impact on whether we are ever denied access than "dibber dobbing".

There are 139 messages in this topic.