Ridiculous penalty for taking dogs into a National Park, VIC

[Lorgar]

As fellow dog owners who like to travel with their dogs will know, there are many places where dogs are off limits (often for seemingly no other reason than where somebody arbitrarily drew line drawn on a map or stuck a sign in the sand).

I was prompted to look into this in a bit more detail as part of a trip some friends and I have planned for the weekend.

For those not in the know about Victoria, dogs are allowed in State Forest, they are not allowed National Park, the exception being you can take them through NP if "the dog is confined in a vehicle that is in transit".

Our plan is to head into State Forest, but due to the gerrymandering of maps outlining what's State Forest vs what's National Park here in Victoria, it turned out one of our intended stops was a point of National Park sticking into the Forest.

Out of curiosity I decided to look up what the fine was for taking a dog into a Park (for those not familiar, fines are dealt in penalty units. In Victoria at the moment 1 penalty unit is $158.57).

The disproportionate penalties for many of our laws is something that's always irked me, but I've reached a new level of *facepalm* this morning.

Here's a little sample for comparison (Sources: Victoria Legal Aid, National Parks Act 2013, Vic Roads)

Shoplifting
2 units - $317 fine

Refusing a Police order to move on from a public place
2 units - $317 fine

Drive a motor vehicle with BAC of 0.14 or more but less than 0.15g/100 ml
4 units - $634 fine

Driving 45km/h + over the limit
5 units - $793 penalty

Failing to give way at a level crossing (to a train)
5 units - $793 penalty

An employee who serves alcohol to a minor
10 units - $1,586 fine

Drunk and behaving in a riotous or disorderly manner
10 units - $1,586 fine


Now, guess what the fine is for having a dog in a national Park?

15 units - $2,378 fine

So... Steal, ignore police, get pissed and drive like a demon, play chicken with a train, give alcohol to kids, go on a drunk riot in public; that's all frowned upon.

But f*** me, don't let your dog out on a leash in a National Park to stretch their legs for 2 minutes. They take that s**t seriously!

[Gwion]

Absolutely crazy!

Although, one would hope that some individual discretion is applied by rangers and other authorities and that this is just the MAX allowed to be imposed on those obviously doing the wrong thing.

[bigfellascott]

Cheaper to steal the "No Dogs Signs" going by the looks of that

[duncan61]

Its not impossible to not do any of them things

[SendIt]

Failing to give way at a level crossing (to a train)

I think that one will sort itself out quickly enough without the need for a fine

[Tiger650]

The people who live in inner Melbourne and thereabouts who think up these penalties are cat people.
Catamites mostly.
I wonder that since cats are are a pestilence and plague for endangered native marsupials is there a similar penalty for Osgood and Cecil if they take their "fur child" predator Cedric into a Nat Park ?

[happyhunter]

The irony is the law bans hunters from hunting feral dogs in national parks so in effect feral dogs are protected.

[on_one_wheel]

One excuse I've been waiting to use is ... "this is my assistance dog, he tells me when I'm about to slip into a psychotic rage episode"

[Lorgar]

one would hope that some individual discretion is applied by rangers and other authorities and that this is just the MAX allowed to be imposed on those obviously doing the wrong thing.

Possibly, but unless discretion in the number of units issued is covered in some other piece of legislation that's not how it reads.

In the National Park Regulations it says, and I quote, "Penalty: 15 penalty units."

There is no mention of anything along the lines of 'up to', 'maximum' or 'discretion'.

Thinking of some of the other examples like speeding tickets or maybe running a red light. I suspect most of us will have had one of these at some point, anyone ever got one where the officer gave a smaller penalty based on their discretion? No, right? The penalty is what it is. For those offences anyway.

I would hope that I'm wrong, but how else can you interpret that other than then penalty is 15 units. It's pretty unambiguous.

Someone jump in if I am and you know differently.

[duncan61]

I have been reading up on parks in Victoria.Pets and firearms are not permitted in Alfred National Park. I assume it states the same thing for all of them like no fishing in marine sanctuaries.Pets kind of covers everything.Is it not possible to not take pets and let them out in the park.I think the govt just trying to preserve some nice areas

[doc]

I have been reading up on parks in Victoria.Pets and firearms are not permitted in Alfred National Park. I assume it states the same thing for all of them like no fishing in marine sanctuaries.Pets kind of covers everything.Is it not possible to not take pets and let them out in the park.I think the govt just trying to preserve some nice areas

I don't think the OP's issue is surrounding the law that says no dogs in national parks. I think it's about the disproportionate penalties and the message it gives out.

According to the fines, the message I see is that the government believes it's almost 4 times more worse to let your dog out of the car for a stretch whilst driving through a NP than to drive a motor vehicle with BAC up to .15 (3x the legal limit) and risk other peoples lives.

Sure - fine someone for doing the wrong thing in a NP I have no issues with that - but make the penalties suit the crime.

[Oldbloke]

The out is out ragious. I wonder what it is if you stop and have a pee up against a tree?

Shut, did I just dob myself in?

[Flash]

Absolutely crazy!

Although, one would hope that some individual discretion is applied by rangers and other authorities and that this is just the MAX allowed to be imposed on those obviously doing the wrong thing.

Many moons ago, as a kid, my family stayed in one of the survival huts around Aberfeldy and we had our German Shepherd with us. While staying there a ranger came, saw the dog, and asked how long we were staying. Pretty much said, just keep it on a leash while you're in the National Park and he's out of the cabin.

Those were the days when you were given a heads up, told it was wrong, but also, you weren't penalized if you were generally trying to do the right thing. (>20yrs ago)
These days, it seems everyone is an authoritarian, and if they can screw you over just for the hell of it, they will.

It was an interesting trip. Going from icy slush in Aberfeldy to 35C in Southern NSW as we headed North in search of pigs for the freezer.

[Gwion]

Had a similar experience on the other side of the divide (nth east Vic) in the same era (circa 1994).

[KennyA]

Sounds like a state that is run by the GREENS.

[Chronos]

Seems Appropriate, now add a zero to the rest of the fines

Sounds like a state that is run by the GREENS.

Hahahaha, except they have probably the best public land hunting laws in the country

Chronos

[Dunxy]

I'm not surprised!
Seems stealing cars and aggravated robberies/home invasions don't even bring gaol time these days,heaven forbid one should take a dog into a national park, oh the humanity!

[Oldbloke]

I think dogs should be on a lead only in NPs. Trouble is there is always a few who would ignore that.
It's the other laws/fines that are too low.

[Bigjobss]

So you can't take a dog into a National Park because it is a potential threat to the native fauna, BUT if you are in there legally targetting a game species you cannot shoot a wild dog if you come across one? Logic fail Victoria style.

[Oldbloke]

So you can't take a dog into a National Park because it is a potential threat to the native fauna, BUT if you are in there legally targetting a game species you cannot shoot a wild dog if you come across one? Logic fail Victoria style.

Same in Eildon State park. Can shoot sambar only.

But some how if a ranger hears your shot and finds a dead wild dog (not potential Dingo) at your feet, he isn't going to book you. And what are the odds?
Naturally if I was in there and saw a wild looking Mastif chewing on a possum or wallaby, I would pass up the shot!

[Bigjobss]

100% agree OB.
I assume the regulations are more about managing legitamised hunting in the park in a mixed use zone whilst discouraging the standard yobbo that just wants to shoot up the joint.

[Oldbloke]

100% agree OB.
I assume the regulations are more about managing legitamised hunting in the park in a mixed use zone whilst discouraging the standard yobbo that just wants to shoot up the joint.

It was a no go zone for a fair few years. Then, I think the ADA managed to negotiate sambar hunting in about half of the park for the winter. Deer hunting is an exception to the normal rules.

So the status of the park is unchanged, therefore foxes, cats etc are off limits.

Sounds and is crazy but thats how it is. We are actually lucky to be able to hunt in there. Most states wouldn't allow it. Some sections of National Park are the same. Crazy but good system for us.
Just could be better for the park/enviroment of we could actively hunt ferals in there.

[Bigjobss]

100% agree OB.
I assume the regulations are more about managing legitamised hunting in the park in a mixed use zone whilst discouraging the standard yobbo that just wants to shoot up the joint.

It was a no go zone for a fair few years. Then, I think the ADA managed to negotiate sambar hunting in about half of the park for the winter. Deer hunting is an exception to the normal rules.

So the status of the park is unchanged, therefore foxes, cats etc are off limits.

Sounds and is crazy but thats how it is. We are actually lucky to be able to hunt in there. Most states wouldn't allow it. Some sections of National Park are the same. Crazy but good system for us.
Just could be better for the park/enviroment of we could actively hunt ferals in there.

National parks are meant to be for the people arent they? Disregard the fairweather camper and hiker and the majority of people who want to use the parks in the winter months are hunters, who else would put up with sub zero conditions, mud, snow and limited daylight hours? Oh and we pay for licenses etc that others dont.

On that what exactly does the GMA do with my license fees? Sambar are a self managed vermin, why do I pay to hunt them?

[Oldbloke]

Correct, in most areas in NPs you only see hunters in winter. Don't forget there are tourist areas such as ski slopes. And hunting In those areas is not on.
I am inclined to agree that the "game" licence system is now out of date. Hang over from 120 years ago when the acclimatisation society was introducing them and the numbers were low. We only need open/closedseasons. So now it's just a way to take our money as little of it seems to be put back into hunting management. Hunting still needs to be managed though.

Edit. Maybe we need a "hunting/game licence" that allows us to hunt game and ferals in some NPs and SPs. Or the one we are now issued allow us to do that.

[southeast varmiter]

If you’ve ever been stalked by wild dogs when hunting, you can see we the fines are there.

[No1Mk3]

Are they really disproportionate though? Feral dogs and dogs-gone-wild (there IS a difference) cause major harm in National Parks, and the need to ensure compliance drives the severity of the penalty. 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. In this instance discretion not to fine was used, and I believe in 99% of cases this would happen but sadly 1% of Rangers who are power mad green wankers could stuff your day up badly. Answer is don't stop within the Park boundries unless your dog IS a guide/companion dog with papers to prove it. Cheers.

[deye243]

yes it sounds crazy but at least we cans store and transport our rifles with the bolt where it belongs .... in the bloody rifle and brass aint a loaded round

[Member-Deleted]

Fines for taking a dog into a National Parks has eventuated from people continually taking no notice of signs saying
NO DOGS ALLOWED IN NATIONAL PARK and keep taking them in
You do get cranky rangers and good rangers but at the end of the day you may have driven past a no dogs allowed sign
bringing the worst out in them
You are lucky down south as we up north aren't allowed to even carry a gun in a NP let alone hunt in one or have a dog for that matter
in one
It does sound silly that you can't shoot feral animals in a NP but I think that is just put into the too hard basket as they do have their own
baiting and shooter programs
I wish we could hunt on and shoot ferals in our NP'S up here because there are plenty of properties owned by NP's riddled with pigs, scrubbers,
deer, dogs ,''treehuggers'',some fox, cats and the list goes on
The main reason they are there is , You guessed it people let them in, took them in or let them go wild and now we have Rules, Regulations, and fines
And I can't see that changing any time soon
Cheers

[Lorgar]

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.

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.

[on_one_wheel]

The big problem is that some people's dogs are just plain stupid, aggressive, disobedient, un-teaibed or all 4.

Personally my dogs are trained well enough that leads are never necessary, they always follow comands instantly ... it's a shame so many people don't take the time to train dogs properly.