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
3:42:56 PM

On 5/03/2012 kieranl wrote:

(In response to One Day Hero):

>Had they engaged with us and been prepared to discuss the issue it would
>have been a different story.

I had an interesting experience once when confronting a cat owner who was transporting his supposedly exotic (but terrified) moggy up the bushwalker's route that follows the tail to the top of The Castle (Budawangs, NSW). "This is a very valuable cat. Do you think I'd let it get out of here into the wild?" he protested loudly. No acceptance of the fact that the cat's presence was contrary to the law and regulations governing National Parks.

Obviously he believed a different set of rules applied to owners of special, i.e, exotic breeds of pussy cats.

Should we allow these people to continue to contaminate the gene pool, or should we instead look at the possibility of designing a Doggie Bag equivalent for offending owners?

dalai

5-Mar-2012
3:49:30 PM

On 5/03/2012 stealth wrote:
>rodw lives in NSW, ODH lives in the ACT.
>This happened in Victoria.
>And Dalai, I am a former PV ranger, so YES, I do have a connection to
>PV.
>If you 3 want to be the Three Stooges and continue to turn a blind eye
>to everything around you and continue to be COMPLETELY NEGATIVE, go ahead.

Care to note in the topic where I am suggesting you turn a blind eye and that I am negative??? All I wrote is that from Kieran's posting it looked that he took the photos and they were in your possession as they were sent to PV which you then saw due to your contacts there.

At no point did I make an opinion on the issue and comment on whether the photos should be forwarded. Based on my comment, I assumed they were already with PV...


rodw

5-Mar-2012
3:50:18 PM

Stealth so i disagree with the way you handled it and I'm stooge???...wtf....and being in NSW means I can't have an opinion?

Were did I say turn a blind eye?...I just said I don't think making PV act is in our long term best interest.....maybe your connection with PV means you view it through rose coloured glasses the effect dealing with PV will have?


kuu

5-Mar-2012
4:03:31 PM

On 5/03/2012 rodw wrote:
>
>Were did I say turn a blind eye?...I just said I don't think making PV
>act is in our long term best interest....
>
Rod, if by "our long term best interest" you're referring to climber ' best interest' then I don't know where you're coming from.

Climbers have no more right to take animals into National Parks than anyone else. It's not as though these people are acting because of ignorance of the rules! They are choosing to put themselves above the regulations!

ZERO

5-Mar-2012
4:03:36 PM

Dalai, apologies, but your comments about my PV connections came across like this is a bad thing.
AccessT has excellent and very positive connections with PV, which benefit all climbers.
I work on a daily basis with the managers of the Grampians and Arapiles, so I am privy to a lot more than I can reveal or discuss here.

And to rodw, if I had a gun I would have shot the dog owner, but that in itself is a breach of the National Parks Act.

I will continue to report any misuse and abuse of our assets. If climbers lose access to any of these assets it will be because we cannot pull in the same direction as a "community".


shortman

5-Mar-2012
4:12:24 PM

On 5/03/2012 stealth wrote:
>Dalai, apologies, but your comments about my PV connections came across
>like this is a bad thing.
>AccessT has excellent and very positive connections with PV, which benefit
>all climbers.
>I work on a daily basis with the managers of the Grampians and Arapiles,
>so I am privy to a lot more than I can reveal or discuss here.
>
>And to rodw, if I had a gun I would have shot the dog owner, but that
>in itself is a breach of the National Parks Act.
>
>I will continue to report any misuse and abuse of our assets. If climbers
>lose access to any of these assets it will be because we cannot pull in
>the same direction as a "community".
>
People bring a dog along and u want to shoot them?

dalai

5-Mar-2012
4:16:31 PM

On 5/03/2012 stealth wrote:
>Dalai, apologies, but your comments about my PV connections came across
>like this is a bad thing.

Actually I feel the opposite. The more climbers in the ranks is a good thing!

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
4:18:33 PM

On 5/03/2012 citationx wrote:
>What of the following scenario: htt://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106503/War-veteran-86-forced-crawl-gas-station-carjacers-broke-leg--NO-ONE-stopped-help.html
>
>(Go on, start rambling about how the two scenarios are different in so
>many fundamental ways)

Ummmm........are you serious?

I think this might be the best non-sequitur I've yet seen on Chocky, makes Wide's logic seem very linear.

kieranl

5-Mar-2012
4:18:38 PM

On 5/03/2012 chalkischeap wrote:
>ODH is the only one making sense to me (though it pains me to admit it).
>
Was that when he said :
> I thought most people had
>that beaten out of them during primary school.

That's the way bullies have always worked.


kuu

5-Mar-2012
4:18:51 PM

On 5/03/2012 shortman wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 stealth wrote:
>>Dalai, apologies, but your comments about my PV connections came across
>>like this is a bad thing.
>>AccessT has excellent and very positive connections with PV, which benefit
>>all climbers.
>>I work on a daily basis with the managers of the Grampians and Arapiles,
>>so I am privy to a lot more than I can reveal or discuss here.
>>
>>And to rodw, if I had a gun I would have shot the dog owner, but that
>>in itself is a breach of the National Parks Act.
>>
>>I will continue to report any misuse and abuse of our assets. If climbers
>>lose access to any of these assets it will be because we cannot pull
>in
>>the same direction as a "community".
>>
>People bring a dog along and u want to shoot them?
>
Yes, the owner of the animal, not the dog or whatever.

Feral animals in National Parks are 'removed'. Feral animal owners should be treated likewise!

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
4:26:02 PM

On 5/03/2012 dalai wrote:
>
>Actually I feel the opposite. The more climbers in the ranks is a good
>thing!

Yeah.......I'm thrilled that our man with 'inside links' to parks victoria seems to be a batshit-crazy wierdo who would shoot someone for taking a dog into a park, and thinks that getting all climbers banned because of a couple of people being rude to him is an ok outcome (rudeness seems to be the main thing the old codgers have fired up over)!


Miguel75

5-Mar-2012
4:31:19 PM

If I were a spiteful man I'd say there's no need to get into it with knobs, wait till they do their thing and then drill out their car locks... Simple and unobtrusive;) They'll appreciate the lesson once the shock wears off...

kieranl

5-Mar-2012
4:39:57 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
> (rudeness seems to
>be the main thing the old codgers have fired up over)!
It's actually the feeling of being threatened.

citationx

5-Mar-2012
4:40:28 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 citationx wrote:
>>(Go on, start rambling about how the two scenarios are different in so
>>many fundamental ways)
>
>Ummmm........are you serious?
>
>I think this might be the best non-sequitur I've yet seen on Chocky, makes
>Wide's logic seem very linear.

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!!


kuu

5-Mar-2012
4:44:14 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 5/03/2012 dalai wrote:
>>
>>Actually I feel the opposite. The more climbers in the ranks is a good
>>thing!
>
>Yeah.......I'm thrilled that our man with 'inside links' to parks victoria
>seems to be a batshit-crazy wierdo who would shoot someone for taking a
>dog into a park, and thinks that getting all climbers banned because of
>a couple of people being rude to him is an ok outcome (rudeness seems to
>be the main thing the old codgers have fired up over)!

Yeh, (we) old codgers are rude, really rude. Unlike you! ;-)

ODH, do you really have some weird desire to take a pet into a National Park and therefore seek to justify that fetish here, or are you merely stirring the possum (again)?


rodw

5-Mar-2012
4:45:48 PM

On 5/03/2012 kuu wrote:

>Rod, if by "our long term best interest" you're referring to climber '
>best interest' then I don't know where you're coming from.
>
>Climbers have no more right to take animals into National Parks than anyone
>else. It's not as though these people are acting because of ignorance of
>the rules! They are choosing to put themselves above the regulations!

I'm not advocating dogs in the park..Im saying don't get parks directly involved.....you get them involved it becomes an official issue...you keep getting them involved and they might end up taking a proactive steps to ensure it doesn't happen which might actually cause access issues rather than solve them....getting the authorities involved should be avoided at all costs.


rodw

5-Mar-2012
4:48:13 PM

On 5/03/2012 stealth wrote:

>And to rodw, if I had a gun I would have shot the dog owner, but that
>in itself is a breach of the National Parks Act.
>
>I will continue to report any misuse and abuse of our assets. If climbers
>lose access to any of these assets it will be because we cannot pull in
>the same direction as a "community".

Your "community" is pretty extreme stealth...I don't think I want to be part of your "community"

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
4:56:49 PM

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.

One Day Hero

5-Mar-2012
5:08:43 PM

On 5/03/2012 kuu wrote:

>ODH, do you really have some weird desire to take a pet into a National
>Park and therefore seek to justify that fetish here, or are you merely
>stirring the possum (again)?

No, I don't think taking dogs into national parks is very cool.

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.

I've never claimed to be particularly mature, but Kieran does seem to play the responsible adult card quite a bit. This episode seriously erodes his cred in that department.

kieranl

5-Mar-2012
5:16:41 PM

On 5/03/2012 One Day Hero wrote:

>I've never claimed to be particularly mature, but Kieran does seem to
>play the responsible adult card quite a bit. This episode seriously erodes
>his cred in that department.
I'll take that as a compliment.

There are 139 messages in this topic.