Key point I have to agree with you Dave, lets not even start on trail bikes
etc. Its all difficult territory.
And there are many ways of birders and perhaps many types of birders if we want
to get into the analysis of serious leisure pursuits, so nope I'm certainly not
adopting the moral high ground here. My perspective, for example, is centred
on being in some sense/s "with" the birds: I've yet to flesh out the
ethico-political philosophy in clear terms. If you know any publishers with
some cash sitting about, I'm very interested in working at the question though!
cw
>>> Dave Torr <> 07/05/04 15:06 PM >>>
As a (I hope) responsible dog owner and also a keen birder I have been
following this debate with interest. I have seen a dog walker take two
(unleashed) large dogs into the Dandenong Ranges NP (outside Melbourne)
right under the nose of a ranger - she cahllenged him but his response was a
polite "I always do this" and he walked on - and she had no real means of
challenging him.
I am concerned at the moment in a battle to stop a development of around
7000 people on the fringe of a remnant grey-box forest outside Melbourne -
the developers assure us the forest will be safe because there will be signs
up prohibiting dog walking.....
But on the other hand (slightly tongue in cheek) let us not push "user pays"
too far or I can see councils eagerly putting a levy on birders going into
the parks. After all - as a dog owner I pay (an admittedly small) amount to
my council which partly funds the parks I use to walk my dogs. WHereas as a
birder I pay nothing (apart from my permit for the local sewage treatment
plant).
And we have not even started on the trail bike riders, mountain bike riders,
horses ...
And are ALL birders always totally ethical about not going on private land
without permission etc.....
The realities are that we have insufficient space (in this vast open
country) to meet the conflicting demands of users and compromises have to be
made. Education programs, signage etc are all useful - but I suspect that in
many cases the "problem users" can't read! Enforcement is an answer - but
unless the fines for non-enforcement are made realistic councils will claim
it can't be done - and in around 35 years of dog ownership in four countries
I don't think I have ever seen a "dog ranger" - let alone been asked to see
if my pets are licensed.
>From: Craig Williams <>
>To:
>Subject: Re: [BIRDING-AUS] Dogs at Lake Francis?!?
>Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:35:26 +1000
>
>Hi folks,
>
>These stories are typical of experiences I've had and will continue to have
>in the foreseeable future. What is to be done?
>
>Of course, much is being done by various levels of government and other
>groups to wrestle with the complexities of competing and conflictive human
>leisure practices, and their impacts on other organisms and ecologies. But
>so much of this unfortunately is windowdressing: this is perhaps to be
>expected given that so many of these institutions/organisations claim to
>have insufficient resources to enforce regulations and provide effective
>control and monitoring of areas. Potential remedies must be examined, and
>I would suggest agitation in line with the "user-pays" principle that is
>now the dominant mode of governmental operation in this country (for some
>users at least...). So what about some sort of levy on registered dog
>owners in addition to the peanuts they are already paying which is
>specifically marked for use in the management of sensitive areas. Or a
>levy on pet/companion animal products - dog food, cat food, etc - combined
>with a concerted effort to fully and comprehensively establish the
>importance of ethical and equitable animal ownership philosophies and
>practices? Councils are loathe to chase these matters in legal contexts
>for all the obvious reasons, but overall the evidence indicates that
>current systems of fines are not working.
>
>Dog and cat owners incresingly have strong representation in local
>government contexts in Australia: so much so that in many cases local
>councils have chosen to operate on the populist pretence that giving
>ground, literally, to pet owners is good democratic administration. In
>many instances the decisions taken are likely to lead to breaches of
>environmental legislation. This sort of practice may keep some groups in
>power in local government, but much more work needs to be done on our part
>in generating a sharper and very public understanding of the statutory
>obligations of local and state government when it comes to policies on
>companion animals and the connection with state and federal legislation.
>
>Yes, I know there are many good, ethical, caring pet owners out there.
>Only wish them to have more power and influence over some of their peers.
>Or something along those lines!
>
>cw
> >>> Ricki Coughlan <> 07/04/04 18:25 PM >>>
>Re: [BIRDING-AUS] Dogs at Lake Francis?!?There are many activities which
>the Lesser-brained Ignoramus seems to enjoy and walking (unleashed) dogs in
>inappropriate areas appears to be one of them. This is probably because,
>like many members of the Godwit genus, LBI's just simply cannot control
>themselves.
>
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
