No1Mk3 wrote:Are they really disproportionate though?
Did you read my comparative examples?
You can't possibly be suggesting this is proportionate compared to the examples of theft, drink driving, alcohol and other reckless, life endangering crimes I listed.
Lets add a few together...
"Drive a motor vehicle with BAC of 0.14 or more but less than 0.15g/100 ml" + "Driving 45km/h + over the limit" + "Failing to give way at a level crossing (to a train)"; Doing
all three combined still carries less of a penalty than letting your dog out on a leash in a national park.
That is nothing short of utterly ridiculous. Period. Anyone who says otherwise (not pointing finger at you) is a complete fool.
My original post demonstrates pretty succinctly they are disproportionate.
No1Mk3 wrote:Where I disagree with legislation is not being able to visit places if I keep the dog in the vehicle, and ran into that issue at Pink Lakes where we stopped for a photo. A Ranger arrived and told us to take the dog out of the park as he could not even be in the car.
Well, under the current legislation he was right to move you along,
however he was incorrect to say your dog was not allowed to be in the car, as previously quoted it is permitted if "the dog is confined in a vehicle that is in transit". Just to clear that up.
I agree visiting should be no issue though.