shadowofadoubt wrote:MickyB wrote:shadowofadoubt wrote:Ah ..there is actually a sign at the walk register at mount roland specifically permitting dogs so that is not true at all.
Do the dogs need to be on leash, shadowofadoubt?
Regarding Murchison, does anyone actually have any evidence they are not allowed? Because I always check before heading out and for Murchison there is nothing online, and no signage at the walk itself, and it is a Regional Reserve, not a conservation area. On the parks website link I provided above, it states "However, dogs are welcome in many Conservation Areas, Regional Reserves and Nature Recreation Areas, and some State Reserves" and "There are many places throughout the State outside national parks and nature reserves where dogs are allowed. Some reserves such as Regional Reserves and Nature Recreation Areas may have designated areas where dogs are allowed". (Note how highlighting things in officious red text is unnecessary!)
In my opinion if it is not a National Park, and there is no signage or indication otherwise, then the default position would be that they are allowed (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary). The Mount Murchison track is very steep and has very little vegetation, it is not a place that is teeming with native wildlife.
Actually the way the regs are written, it is the opposite. Unless there is a sign permitting dogs, they are not allowed. This applies to regional reserves and conservation areas as well.
Mt Roland regional reserve is interesting, because I've also seen the sign saying dogs allowed, and next to it one saying they aren't. I haven't been there for a few years but I believe the sign permitting them has been removed.
The exception is land zoned Permanent Timber Production or Future Production Forest which don't have the same restrictions.
Mt Murchison would be a no-no, given that it's a regional reserve and there's no sign allowing dogs. If I had a dog up there I'd also be worried about them missing the edge and ending up over a cliff
