What are your thoughts on the draft Forestry Regulations?

​Now Closed

This online engagement was hosted on YourSAy from 3 August to 30 August 2020. Find out more about the consultation process. Below is a record of the engagement.

 

We want to hear your feedback on the draft Forestry Regulations.

Read the Forestry Act 1950 and the proposed amendments to the regulations to inform your feedback.

Let us know what you think by commenting below.

Comments closed

Ken Cocks

14 Aug 2020

Detecting in Mt Crawford is very much a hobby/recreational activity. None of us are walking away with a fortune - and in fact it is not uncommon to detect all day for no result. Daily/annual fees should therefore be kept to a minimum.
The majority of detectorists are responsible and strive to leave minimal disturbance to the ground after scraping for a target. We are however, appalled by those who simply dig and walk away leaving gaping or untidy holes. It may be prudent and effective to exclude or eject offenders.

Michael Kenning

14 Aug 2020

I think raising the fossicking and camping fees are extremely unfair. Considering we only have a very small part of the Mt Crawford Forrest we are aloud to fossick in as it is.

Jeff Han

14 Aug 2020

Re: Fossicking

Current ForestSA fee is $50 per year, compared to Victoria’s current miner’s right of $2.52. ($25.20 for 10 years for all of Victoria, permitted areas that is). Why compare with Victoria?, why not, we need a frame of reference, they are closest to us. Other states are more but not far off Victoria’s.

The proposal now is to increase from $50 to $70 per year. It does not appear reasonable when you consider:-
(a) It is not open to other ForestSA areas, just Mt Crawford Forest area, and a restricted one at that.
(b) Administrative effort has been reduced with the introduction of the online permitting system (yet a booking fee has been inexplicably added making it $5.10 instead of $5.00 per day currently, proposal is to increase it to $7.10).
(c) Fossicking is permitted without a fee at other SA permitted sites Chapel Hill and Jupiter Creek.
(d) Other recreational activity do not attract fees, not knocking them but no fee is charged for fishing for example.

This increase is unfair, should not be implemented, there are grounds for it to be reduced.

Jeff Han > Jeff Han

14 Aug 2020

The reason given for the increase is "This minor fee increase will help offset
the costs of administration and on-ground
management." The fee proposal is a 40% increase, not a minor increase in my calculation - has the cost of administration and ground maintenance gone up the same amount?

Bailey Park

13 Aug 2020

Dear Forestry SA,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would like to suggest that rather than a blanket approach to dogs needing to be on lead, which I do not support, please consider lead requirements being focused to key problem areas you have identified and couple this with an education program about appropriate human and animal behaviours within the forests. As an example, I’ve seen great educational signage about understanding dog behaviour created by the City of Charles Sturt - it’s engaging, positive and focuses on education for behaviour change rather than relying on penalties and restrictions for compliance. There are of course times when restrictions and compliance are needed but these are often easy “go to’s” rather than genuine engagement with the community. Please consider alternate ways to create the behaviour change you are wanting to achieve rather than a restrictive blanket rule for leashing dogs. There are many responsible dog owners out there who could become a strong community to help you achieve your goals for responsible animal management within in your parks if your broaden out your approach and have a stronger focus on education. Thanks

Glenn Gale

12 Aug 2020

I do not support the proposed change in camping fees as it penalises cyclists and hikers compared to those arriving by vehicle. It is unfair to charge cyclists and hikers $7/night per person but a car with 5 people in it is charged a fee of $18/night - less than $4 per person. It should not be more expensive for a group of people to walk or ride bicycles to a campsite in a reserve than it would be to arrive by vehicle. That is ridiculous. You need to charge per person, with no charge for young children, say 5 years or younger. Dont penalise walkers and cyclists because of flaws in your booking system that create an administrative burden in amending minor changes to bookings (e.g. adjusting people numbers). Fix your online booking system.
I support the amendments regarding generators, the possession and use of chainsaws, and the protection of vegetation.

Sharyn Jong

12 Aug 2020

I don’t agree with dogs being on leads at all. I live within 5 mins drive from my local forest and I visit at a minimum 3 times a week. I usually ride my horse with a friend and I take my two dogs (that I can’t lead while riding!) I also hike with my dogs for fitness. 90% of the time we don’t see anyone, and I try to keep clear of camping areas especially on weekends and school holidays. I recently spoke to a ranger about the unusual amount of cars IN the forest. He told me it was fossickers but thanked me for keeping an eye out. As the rangers can’t see everything and they rely on the public. It’s usually 4wds that ruin the forest not dogs! It’s unfair for the majority of us that have friendly dogs.

Andrew Kerr

12 Aug 2020

I feel it would be sad to make all dog owners use leads. I think most are responsible and will call their dogs back in plenty of time . I do however feel it is acceptable to require dog owners with aggressive dogs to keep them muzzled As this would be much more effective in protecting the community and wildlife from injury. The best way of achieving compliance would be to have penalties if dogs do misbehave or are not properly controlled and cause injury to other users or wildlife.

IThink it would be sad for a minority with badly behaved dogs to ruin it for everyone Else.

Kimberley Blayney

12 Aug 2020

I do not believe responsible dog owners should be punished for the minority of those who do not properly monitor their dogs when out and about and do not agree with the proposed on leash rule. This is somewhere people come to enjoy with their dogs and should be able to walk freely and relax in nature. The same rule should apply here as all other off leash areas in that the owner must have control at all times and if not risk the fines that may apply. Really hoping this will get reviewed for the sake of our friends who enjoy their regular forest walks.

Mark McIntosh

12 Aug 2020

Camping fees should not discriminate between vehicle type. If you charge, then charge per person.
Make it $5 per person and kids under a certain age free

Angela Moro

12 Aug 2020

Just wanted to add that I can understand that in the public campgrounds it would be fare to ask people to keep dogs on leads but in places that are away from others dogs should be allowed off lead . They should always be under owner control and should always be put on lead when approaching other people / dogs etc . Responsible dog owners / lovers should be rewarded and not punished .

Angela Moro

12 Aug 2020

As someone who visits on a weekly bases and someone who is a responsible dog owner and has obedience trained dogs It makes me very sad to hear that my dogs need to be on a lead (less than 3mtrs ) . I believe that the majority of people that visit with their dogs would only let them off lead if they have control of their dogs . I would be more than happy to pay for a permit to be able to have my dogs of lead . Perhaps people who have completed level 5 of dog obedience could get a permit and be exempt . Going to the forest with my dogs for a hike is my happy place , we appreciate it and we respect it and it's wildlife . Also in respect to camping fees etc . The recent changes have changed our habits a lot as we can't just turn up and get a fire pit and have a picnic for the day even if it is vacant as if it was booked by others even if they have left we can not use that space . It is great that campers are allowed to use wood that is on forest floor and I understand the noise of chainsaws is very loud but perhaps they could allow rechargeable ones as they are a lot quieter and no fuel needed etc .

Adam Forte

12 Aug 2020

Native wildlife needs protecting, if that means dogs on leads at all times than so be it. That also extends to how you move around the bike and travel to it. I totally oppose the concept of hikers and cyclists incurring higher fees than a family driving in with a car.

Adam Forte > Adam Forte

12 Aug 2020

**park

Julie Wallis

12 Aug 2020

Very disappointing to hear of the proposal regarding dogs to be restricted to on lead only in Forest areas. These forests are a huge benefit for both dogs and owners and would be extremely frustrating to see dogs restricted from yet another area. The majority do the right thing. If it is the non dog lovers complaining, well sorry, don't they have enough places to walk/hike. Please, please, do not change this rule. We love the forests. It helps not only mental health but physical health to be able to walk or run through these beautiful areas with our well behaved dogs. Putting restrictions on us and our pets is beyond disappointing. There are few places to walk our dogs off lead and you want to limit that further? This is a terrible idea and I would strongly suggest to keep off lead areas as is. This is not a time in the world to impose any further restrictions especially when being able to walk our well friendly dogs off lead is good for dog and handler is this negative time.

Peter Oag

12 Aug 2020

I do not support the requirement for all dogs to be on leads at all times in forests. I agree that owners should be able to control their dog, but it is one of the few areas where dogs can actually run with their owners in open areas.

Peter Oag

12 Aug 2020

I do not support the increase in fees for cyclists so that it is more expensive for 5 cyclists to camp than a car full of 5 people. That is illogical and discriminatory, eg car of 5 people is $18, whereas 5 individual cyclists ride in as a group, costs $7 per per person = $35. Why is it more expensive to ride a bike to a camp site than drive a car to the same campsite?

Ann Blythe

12 Aug 2020

I do not support the proposal to require dogs to be on lead in state forests. We have few enough areas to walk any distance with our dogs off lead as it is. Another case of over regulation, if the proposal is included in legislative changes.

Joscelyn Reid

12 Aug 2020

Some dogs off lead chase other animals, other digs, kangaroos, deer.
Some dogs jump up on elderly walkers nearly knocking them over.
Some horse riders have dogs off lead running around whilst dog owner is riding, causing stress to walkers and other horse riders.
Some horse riders lead young green horses from the horse they are riding and have full control over bith horses, but some people let young horses run free in forests for play, notstaying on paths, trampling delicate ground, jumping logs and scrub etc.
Horses should be 'in hand' at all times and on designated tracks.
Dogs should be on a lead at all times.
Horses should be in hand on a lead when being led, ridden or tied to flats.

Rob Stiles

11 Aug 2020

Very disappointing to hear of the proposal regarding dogs to be restricted to on lead only in Forest areas. These forests are a huge benefit for both dogs and owners and would be extremely frustrating to see dogs restricted from yet another area.

Don Battersby

11 Aug 2020

I have walked dogs in the forest for over 35 years - dogs always on lead - and have only had issues with other dogs when they have been off lead. If they just remained "at heel" it would not be so bad but dogs will naturally venture away from the owner and come face to face with other dogs before the owner of the off-lead dog realizes what is happening. I have also had difficult situations with people of horses with dogs off lead and not in a position to restrain their dogs. We all like to think our dogs are fine with other dogs but the reality that this can change very quickly in different circumstances.
Apart from the threat to wildlife there is also the danger to dogs roaming into long grass in the warmer weather and encountering snakes and out in the forest is a long way from a vet.
The forest is a great place to enjoy walking dogs and it certainly does not spoil the experience for the dogs to be on leads and it means other users of the forest don't have to worry about dogs off lead appearing out of "nowhere" and waiting until the owner realizes it is a shared space.
For everyone's peace of mind please amend the rules so that dogs are required to on lead at all times.

Sue Pemberton > Don Battersby

25 Aug 2020

"does not spoil the experience for dogs to be on the lead' What planet are you on?

Mark Hosking

11 Aug 2020

The forests are our favourites places to walk our dogs. We often go with a small group and never have any issues. If someone is approaching, we always put our dogs on their leads. This is very upsetting you are even contemplating the lead rule. I think the majority do the right thing. If it is the non dog lovers complaining, well sorry, don't they have enough places to walk/hike. Please, please, do not change this rule. We love the forests.

Angela Moro > Mark Hosking

12 Aug 2020

Agree , I always put my dogs back on lead as soon as I see people or other dogs . Usually I go to places that are quiet and on a 2 hour hike I don't see a soul .

Sarah Macdonald

10 Aug 2020

All great amendments especially dogs on leads. I've seen too much damage to wildlife and hate finding dog-do left behind, bagged or not.
My only reservation is re #26 permits. If this is visitor or camping permits, it could affect overseas or interstate travelers who don't always have data or reception everywhere they go.

Government Agency

ForestrySA

10 Aug 2020

Thank you everyone for your contribution to the online discussion on the draft Forestry Regulations. Public response to the engagement process to date has been significant and highlights the popularity of forest reserves for a variety of recreational user groups.

ForestrySA would like to reiterate a final decision has not yet been made on proposed amendments. Your feedback is important to us and will help inform updates to the existing regulations. The project team will review all suggestions submitted and provide an update on the ForestrySA website once the survey has closed for comment.

All feedback and concerns will be considered while balancing the needs of our various stakeholders, as much as practically possible.

Kind regards

Draft Forestry Regulations Project Team

Robert Green > ForestrySA

12 Aug 2020

So....no final decision has been made but there's an article in today's paper, quoting forest chief Julian Speed, that there indeed will be restrictions from the first of January. Sort of makes you look foolish, if not downright deceptive, regarding your above comments if what is reported is correct. The whole consultation process is complete waste of time as clearly the vast majority of respondents do not want any change . Very disappointing in the way you have gone about this and is a reflection of why so many of the population are losing faith in authority. As someone who regularly uses the forests I can say that I have seen NO incidents with unrestrained dogs but I have seen lots of incidents of people who dislike dogs, or anyone else, sharing 'their' space. As I said disappointing....but I guess our opinion really doesn't matter.

Government Agency

Forest Regulations Team > ForestrySA

13 Aug 2020

Hi Robert, thank you for your feedback and interest in the proposed amendments to the Forestry Regulations. YourSAy allows us to run an open and transparent consultation process for all to see and contribute to, and we do value every opinion. We are listening to what people have to say so that we can make the most appropriate decision. If we don't consult then we can't understand what respondants want. If you read the newspaper article thoroughly, you will note the quotes the ForestrySA Chief Executive as stating: “There has been a noticeable increase in reported dog attacks in ForestrySA forest reserves, ... However, he said, based on the results of the community consultation, the regulations may only apply to “selected high-use areas”. ForestrySA needs to determine, with the help of the community, the balance of our duty of care to forest users and native fauna (affected by aggressive dog behaviour) and the recreational needs of dog owners. We believe this process will give us the best opportunity to continue to provide access for dogs in a practical and acceptable manner. Your opinion has been noted along with all the others. Thanks again.

Robert Green > ForestrySA

14 Aug 2020

Thank you for the reply. I still find it difficult to believe that the process is indeed "open and transparent" when signs have recently been put up (Kuitpo) indicating that dogs need to be on lead, and this before any consultation process was put in place. Which leads me to believe that the result is preconceived. I also note that the original proposal does not make allowance for any dog to be off lead, it's just a blanket rule, the first indication that there may be amendments was when I read it in the paper. However I can only respond to what was originally proposed by Forestry SA, and that is dogs on lead everywhere. If you are indeed listening I would hope that there will still be allowance for the vast majority of responsible owners to exercise our dogs off lead, preferably not in some small, remote pocket of the forests. As you can tell from the responses so far around 90% of respondents do not want change to the current situation. As far as the noticeable increase in attacks are concerned. If this is so I would put that down to the greatly increased use of the forests by the general population along with the increased ownership of dogs during this period of covid-19. Perhaps one way of allowing dogs off lead is a permit system where a fully trained dog (level 4 or higher) are allowed off lead. Any responsible owner will have attended a recognised training facility and received a certificate if their dog qualifies. I too do not want to see aggressive dogs in the forest, or anywhere else. Thank you.

Government Agency

Forest Regulations Team > ForestrySA

14 Aug 2020

Hi Robert, ForestrySA installed signs directly in response to a number of aggressive dog incidents at that specific location. It is our duty of care to forest visitors and completely within our charter as a public land manager to set in place access requirements considered necessary for public safety or any other reason. This has also occurred at other forest locations from time to time. The timing in relation to the Regulation amendments consultation is purely coincidental. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and suggestions.

Robert Green > ForestrySA

14 Aug 2020

Sorry.....you have lost all credibility. Clearly the decision has been made.

Vanessa Koster

10 Aug 2020

It is the highlight of not only our dogs day but us as owners to walk freely through the beautiful terrain we have been blessed to live near. It helps not only mental health but physical health to be able to walk or run through these beautiful areas with our well behaved dogs. Putting restrictions on us and our pets is beyond disappointing. There are few places to walk our dogs off lead and you want to limit that further? This is a terrible idea and I would strongly suggest to keep off lead areas as is. This is not a time in the world to impose any further restrictions especially when being able to walk our well friendly dogs off lead brings positivity to our life in a negative time.

Megan Tudor

10 Aug 2020

There are already so few places to be able to take our dogs off lead, the few places that are available are so often crowded - to people like myself, dogs are family. Getting out and about is important not only for our physical health, but our mental wellbeing as well.
Please don’t increase the leash requirements, if anything, decrease them! Give us more opportunities

Robert Green

10 Aug 2020

I would hope that this is truly consultation, and not merely window dressing. Up to this point it would be clear that the vast majority of comments are against any proposal to the current rules. I note that the opportunity for contributing to the discussion ends on the 30/08/2020, but signs requiring dogs to be on lead have been in place in Kuitpo for some time now, and friends are telling me that rangers have been cautioning walkers, which leads me to strongly suspect that the decision has already been made.