Please provide feedback regarding Declared Areas

over 1 year ago
CLOSED: Feedback regarding the Declared Areas has now concluded.

The document regarding Declared Areas will be open for public comments and submissions until 4 February 2018.  

  • FernTreeLindsey over 1 year ago
    I'd like to register my concern in regard to this section of the proposal 'The Pipeline Track (between Fern Tree and the municipal boundary) Note: the Pipeline
    Track extends into the Kingborough municipality' stating that this part of the pipeline track will now be prohibited. This will have a huge impact on a large number of dog owners who live directly on or very close to this track and regularly walk with their dogs on this particular section. Those affected include residents of Grays Road, Browns Road, Huon Road, Clegg Road, Westringa and many others. This is a residential area with many dog owners and the ability to walk with our dogs in our backyard was a large reason for moving to this area. We would be forced to walk along Huon Road which has no footpath and has fast moving traffic, not safe for family walks at all! Otherwise it means getting in the car to find a safe place to go for walks which completely defeats the purpose of living up here. I would like further clarification on this point to be sure my understanding is correct and I'd be grateful if this point could be more carefully considered with the residents of the area taken into consideration. There is no easily accessible off leash area and now our on leash area is under threat too.
  • Lisa over 1 year ago
    Fantastic to see dogs could potentially be allowed off lead for an extra hour each morning in summer, this would hugely benefit us. It would be good, however, to have some clarification of the 10m exclusion zone around mcrobies gully waste management facility. Does this mean dogs cannot be walked to the end of mcRobies road or on the adjacent fire trails that run along the edge of the tip. These are very popular dog on lead walking areas, particularly the southern trails that lead into the foothills of kunanyi. The alternative is that a dog would have to be walked off track potentially disturbing flora and fauna to avoid the tip? Or could this include a caveat unless on a track, trail or road 10m exclusion around tip. Thanks
  • Mary Bent over 1 year ago
    The Mercury notice says that the Pipeline track from Ferntree to council border and Radfords track are to be not included in the dog walking areas. Both are significant losses. I don't understand why these should've excluded.
  • Chrissie over 1 year ago
    Could you please clarify if dogs will still be allowed on the lower Queenborough Oval adjacent to Sandy Bay Road when there are no other sporting activities. This is an excellent facility, well used by the community and a great meeting place for dog walkers. We have used this place for >12 years and regularly meet many older residents who find the facility easy to access and enjoy the community contact of other responsible dog owners. Significantly, on Monday mornings we (the dog owners) normally clean up all the litter left by the sports activities over the weekend. It would be a great loss to the community if access was denied after the renovation is completed. I understand that the upper oval (with the big pavilion and adjacent to the Aged Care Home ) remains restricted to dogs and appreciate that the restrictions should remain in place
  • Rachel Meyers over 1 year ago
    I am concerned with the prospect that on lead dogs will not be allowed on the pipeline or radfords tracks. This is a significant loss for the large number of hobartians who come to the pipeline or radfords track, not to mention Fern Tree residents who already have to hop in the car to drive to off leash areas in other municipalities. If we can't walk our dogs on the Pipeline and up Radfords then there are no other safe options to walk our dogs without driving somewhere else - Huon Rd has no footpath and is unsuitable for night time and family walks. I don't understand how this change has not had significant community consultation or public notices on the tracks themselves.
  • KimB over 1 year ago
    I am concerned about the proposed changes to access to the Pipeline Track and Radford Track by people with dogs on leash. I hope that existing access to these tracks will be maintained.
  • Obi b over 1 year ago
    Dogs have no place in places such as these. No matter how well you think your dog is trained it is still a dog and it’s frustrating to see them hunting small animals every day at Kingston Beach.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Blahga over 1 year ago
      You what? Hunting small animals at Kingston Beach, oh yes of course the beach is teeming with small animals, 2 legged ones.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • ABC over 1 year ago
        Dogs scare the wild life. Which is why where there are dogs there is no wildlife. Wildlife have eyes and ears and can smell dogs - so they keep away.
        As the doggy areas become wastelands the dog owners want to go to more 'natural' areas where the process is repeated.
        Hide reply (1)
        • TL over 1 year ago
          The comment 'where there are dogs there is no wildlife', needs questioning. I own a dog. Why is there wildlife in my garden which is visited by pademelons, wallabies, possums (both ringtail and brushtails), and birds?

          Skats indicate wallabies and pademelons visit Wellesley Park and can be seen on the Hobart Rivulet Track.

          Wildlife are being forced out of bushland due to habitat destruction.
    • TL over 1 year ago
      Kingston Beach is not in the Hobart municipality. The dog management plan being reviewed is the Hobart City Council's.
      That said, the dogs I see at Kingston Beach (dog section) seem to enjoy the beach atmosphere of swimming and fetching, not hunting. The dog beach at Kingston Beach is not very big and it's good some space has been allocated for dog owners.
  • FernTreeResident over 1 year ago
    I am expressing my concern regarding the Pipeline/Radfords track proposal. There is no other safe area to walk dogs for locals in this area. There are no footpaths in Pillinger Drive, or on Huon Rd and most of the other surrounding streets, leaving no alternative route to walk dogs. This would be a significant loss for our community.
  • LocalConcernedDog over 1 year ago
    Also expressing concern with the prospect that on lead dogs will not be allowed on the pipeline or radfords tracks. This will be a devestating loss to local residents and dog owners who come to the pipeline or radfords track.
  • Andrew Doran over 1 year ago
    It is very dangerous walking dogs in the Ferntree area due to the non existence of footpaths. I have already experienced a twisted ankle due to the non maintained rough area next to the road. The pipeline track offers one of the few safe areas to walk and access should be continued for responsible dog owners.
  • Ashe over 1 year ago
    I disagree with the proposal to ban dogs on lead from be pipeline track, it would be shuch a shame to lose the opportunity for safe family walks with the dogs, particularly since there are no footpaths and the roadside is not a safe option.
  • Philip7 over 1 year ago
    I fully support taking dogs of the pipeline track and the mountain generally. I have witnessed too many slack owners unwilling to pick their dog crap up. We should respect these areas and the flora and fauna that exists rather than bring our pets in to the area.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Caz over 1 year ago
      What about the damage caused by bike riders, should they be banned too?
    • Rkay over 1 year ago
      So we penalise the majority of dog owners who do the right thing because of the actions of the few? Some people speed on the roads around Fern Tree, which makes walking dogs on the roadsides even more unsafe without viable footpaths. Let's close the roads to cars because of those few speedsters. Yes, it's unfortunate for the majority, but using the original poster's logic it's the only real way to address the problem. Then the roads can be freely available to the dog walkers, petrol use and carbon emissions will drop, and general health will go up. Win-win!
  • Katharine over 1 year ago
    Majority of strategy sounds great, except the removal of pipeline track. This area is a weekly running and riding track for my family with our dog and we would be devastated if this was removed and dogs were no longer allowed. This is such a popular successful dog walking area for local and near families, I don’t see any issues with having dogs in this area.
  • Janee over 1 year ago
    As a Fern Tree resident, if I can’t walk my dog on the pipeline track where else can I? The roads are too dangerous with no footpath and there aren’t any dog friendly parks. There may be some irresponsible dog owners using the pipeline track but that doesn’t mean everyone else should suffer because of them. I do think people are a bit slack cleaning up after their dogs. Dogs need exercise and stimulation, if you keep banning them from everywhere it’ll be harder for owners to provide them with those needs, which can cause problems mentally and physically, not to mention a boring life for the dog.
  • Annefern09 over 1 year ago
    The removal of the pipeline track, Radfords Track and other tracks from usage is not fair on local residents. I am a weekly user of all tracks and have never encountered any issues. Removal of existing dog walking tracks such as Radfords and Pipeline (plus other tracks named as proposed changes) will put residents at risk as they will be forced to walk on the road. Please do not change any existing rules as it will severely disadvantage locals.
  • Toni over 1 year ago
    The pipeline track is a well used on-lead dog walking track with no concern or threat to wildlife, other walkers, or cyclists as dogs are on leads. As Fern Tree residents, we have no safe road with footpaths to walk dogs, and no off-lead exercise area available without driving out of the area. The pipeline track is wide enough for dogs, families, cyclists, and walkers to pass one another untroubled. The majority of dog owners keep to the on-lead rules and clean up after their dogs, causing no harm. Keep the pipeline track available for dog walking.
  • Blahga over 1 year ago
    Why on earth would the ban on dogs at Salamanca market be from 5.30 am when the market only starts at 8.30 am. If it's due to setting up the market - it's still stupid because they seem to be allowed there after 3pm and anybody knows that the market doesn't miraculously disappear at 3pm. Somebody has not thought this through at all and as for the draconian changes around Fern Tree - no footpaths but not allowed on the tracks -it's quite mad. The first person to come to grief walking on the dangerous Huon Road should sue under health and safety laws.
  • KWhite over 1 year ago
    The Pipeline track is well used by Fern Tree residents and other locals as a dog walking track as it offers a safe area away from traffic. The majority of dog owners are responsible in keeping dogs on leads and picking up after them. Please keep the track available for dog walking.
  • Dermottdog64 over 1 year ago
    How ridiculous of the anti dog brigade of the HCC. Dog walking is a social activity that brings lots of joy to families and provides exercise for our population. On lead walking in the Fern Tree area provides no danger to native animals.
    As you haven't provided any footpaths in the area, dog walkers will now have to walk on the road, a very dangerous thing to do.
  • Caz over 1 year ago
    Pipeline Track provides a shady cool, safe walk for families with dogs. Why is proposed as no dog? Radfords Track is shared use and presumably dogs interfere with bike riders travelling at speed. There are more families with dogs than bike riders on the mountain and they should be given priority. An on lead dog would pose less threat to wildlife than a fast moving bike, not to mention the cost involved and the environmental damage caused by the building and maintaining of bike tracks. Consideration should be given to providing more facilities for dog walkers (rubbish. Ins on Pinnacle Rd) as well as designing and promoting attractive dog walk options!
  • CJG over 1 year ago
    I am very concerned at the proposal to remove access for dog walking to the Pipeline Track and Radfords. I have used these tracks walking and riding with my dog for over 12 years and have always found it a positive experience- keeping my dog on lead and cleaning up after it. I am a local and given the lack of footpaths for miles (literally) I am reliant upon the tracks to walk my dog and myself. This is one of the unique and enjoyable experiences of living in the area. It isn’t clear why access to this track needs to be closed in the first instance. If it is related to the water catchment, then this doesn’t make a lot of sense as the catchment is further south and dogs are banned from that area in any event.
  • RF over 1 year ago
    Not allowing dogs on the pipeline track is an outrageous idea. The road is unsafe to walk on in Fern Tree, and the mountain isn't a national park. The track is there to be used for recreation. Dogs are allowed on nearly all council tracks, and to say this one should be different is ridiculous.

    The Council is here to serve the people. The people are not here to obey every whim and ill-thought-out gimmick policy the Council decides to try and push on us.
  • FernTreeLindsey over 1 year ago
    Good news from Anna Reynolds, see the below reply.

    Dear Lindsey

    Perhaps the draft 2019 – 2023 Dog Policy document is poorly communicated, but I am advised that there is no plan to change the current dog walking rules on Mt Wellington from the current ones as outlined on the map in this information sheet -

    So if the draft 2019 - 2023 policy document doesn't make this clear, then we can change it when finalising the plan.

    Thanks for raising this with me.

    Cheers, Anna
  • NealC over 1 year ago
    Why not provide more bins and dog-waste bags rather than banning dogs from the pipeline track? It makes far more sense to make it easy for people to look after the area than it does to introduce more rules which would then need to be enforced. Come on HCC, this is a tone-deaf policy with no clear reason for introduction.
  • May over 1 year ago
    Banning dogs on the pipeline track is outrageous. Why not ban humans? Rubbish, car pollution, dogs don't do that. Despite what the fear mongers say- dog poo will actually breakdown, so the occasional poo that isn't picked up (by irresponsible dog owners) actually isn't that big of a deal. Why not some more bins and poo bags? Absolutely ridiculous HCC, very disappointed none of you will be getting my vote again with this kind of policy, ruining the way of life for so many people for no good reason.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • ABC over 1 year ago
      Your doggy way of life ruins my non doggy way of life.
      Hide reply (1)
      • May over 1 year ago
        I can guarantee you right now that my dog has never had any sort of negative impact on your life at all. If anything it's the opposite way around, go and enjoy the under-utilised plethora of beaches, shops, and parks (including national parks) that you have entirely to yourself- dog free.
  • DavidH over 1 year ago
    I’m concerned by the apparent proposal to stop dog walking on a lead along the Pipeline track. If there is one track on the entire mountain that is suited to every kind of mixed use, then it is the Pipeline.

    I bike ride and run on the track ( as well as occasionally walking a friend’s dog). I don’t find there’s any conflict. Meeting other walkers, riders, runners and dogs is part of the pleasure of the experience.

    I also note the proposal to exclude dogs from Radford’s Track. This is more understandable as it is steeper and narrower - dogs on leads and fast moving bikes can be a problem. However, this also means there is no off-road access for dog walkers from the lower mountain to the Springs. It would be much better if permitted dog walking tracks were connected.
  • Dave over 1 year ago
    Attention is drawn to the confused wording of the section relating to Wellington Park in the section dealing with on lead exercise areas. It would appear that on lead exercising is intended to be excluded from Radfords Track and the Pipeline Track betweeen Fern Tree and the City Boundary. It also appears that the Springs Zone is excluded if one is making a connection to other approved tracks and trails and the Pinnacle Zone if the dog is confined within a vehicle. While the intent of the last two exclusions is evident (if not clear) I have significant concern regarding the apparent exclusions on Radfords Track and particularly the Pipeline Track. As Council will be aware there are no footpaths in Fern Tree and the Pipeline Track is one of the few places where dog owners can exercise their dogs without having to worry about fast moving cars. It is presently used by many locals and visitors for this purpose and excluding it is likely to be extremely unpopular especially as there does not appear to be any valid reason for so doing.
  • Keyran Pitt over 1 year ago
    I strongly support the proposed extension of off lead time for dog exercising on beaches, until 10 AM.
    In my experience Nutgrove Beach is usually populated by dog walkers, and is not normally used for other recreational purposes, until well after 10 AM. I do not believe the extension of time will have any adverse effect on other users of the beach, and will provide a significant additional period for dogs to be exercised, for those who cannot get there earlier.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • ABC over 1 year ago
      I avoid Nutgrove because of the dogs on it, as more and more dogs take over Long Beach I will have to avoid that in future as well. Dog owners have no understanding of how their pets spoil the simple pleasures of ordinary people who do not wish to share their lives with other peoples dogs.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • rcameron over 1 year ago
        Dogs are not permitted on Long Beach and there has not been any reason or request to change this. I do not see dogs on Long Beach and I walk in the area every day. Dog owners understand that some Beaches are for those who do not like dogs. Nutgrove beach will be free of "Off lead" dogs between 10.00am and 7.00 and 3.00 pm in winter according to this strategy. That is a lot of time for you to enjoy your life without the risk of an off lead dog approaching you.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Tina over 1 year ago
          I too walk in the area frequently. I rarely see a dog on Long Beach. Last time I saw a dog off leash running on Long Beach was the weekend before Australia Day (11 days ago). However it is not uncommon to see dogs off leash on the grass areas near the childrens playground and bbq area.
          As for Nutgrove the safe 'on leash' times are a joke. If you are a law abiding dog owner who only goes during off leash hours you would not realise the problems on this beach at other times. There is no safe time because many dog owners don't wish to follow the rules. I only visit well within 'on leash' hours and many times have retreated with my small dog and driven home again as too many off leash dogs. I have seen and spoken to other people retreating off the beach for the same reason. Other times I pick my dog up when a large dog runs at me and then try to keep walking further down the beach. Not seeing a dog off leash is a very rare thing unfortunately. Last Saturday (Aust Day weekend) at 4.30pm there were 11 dogs on beach and 6 of those were running around off leash. Unless HCC issues infringements its never going to work for anyone except off leash dogs.
          Edit update: today final day of input to this plan I was at Long Beach - and there was a woman with her children and her dog off leash on the beach around 10.30am. I took a photo in case proof is needed as rcameron commenting above believes this does not happen at Long Beach.
      • Tina over 1 year ago
        ABC Are you referring to the problem of the significant amount of dog owners at Nutgrove who don't abide by the 'on leash' times?
  • PeterM over 1 year ago
    I agree with the total ban of dogs on Wellesley park, the ground is an amazing facility for our kids to train, I have witnessed plenty of dog droppings being removed from the ground, it’s not up to the sporting teams and management to clean that’s not fair!
    Peter M.
  • Brad over 1 year ago
    Dogs should be removed from ovals in South Hobart. A majority of owners don’t take responsibility for their dogs and are ruining perfect facilities provided for the footballing public.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Bree over 1 year ago
      Hi Brad,
      Whilst I respect your view your are not correct. I visit SH ground daily and Wellesly occasionally a majority of owners do take responsibility for their dogs and clean up after them. These are community facilities and should continue to be available and shared by everyone whilst sport is not being played and this a majority of the time. I encourage you to visit in the morning or evening and you will see dogs, their owners and families enjoying the spaces and acting responsibly. Use of these grounds is an opportunity to bring communities together rather than seeking to remove people.
  • Dianne Cornelius over 1 year ago
    Please ban dogs from Wellesly Park and Darcy St sports grounds. Why not take them to the Rivulet walk where they can run and do their 'business' but please pick up after your dog.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Wayne over 1 year ago
      Hi Dianne,
      Thank you for your comments. Moving the dogs to the Rivulet Walk area sounds good in theory. There is an off lead area near the McFarlane Street Footbridge however it doesn't get a lot of use. I suspect that is because:
      * it is a smaller area
      * it is unfenced and sandwiched between the Rivulet and bushland both which contain protected threatened flora and fauna. I've seen the Bandicoots, Platypus, wallabys and echindas close by which are at risk from off lead dogs
      * the area can be cold as it doesn't get the sun in the Winter
      * there is poor lighting when most are able to exercise their dogs in the morning or evening before or after work
      * there have also been some safety/ stranger danger issues in the area in recent years which would deter many
      In contrast the recreation grounds at Wellesly Park and Darcy Street are enclosed, safe, easily accessible to community. I visit Darcy Street ground every day and Wellesly weekly. The overwhelming majority of dogs and their owners are very responsible in their use of the grounds and a real sense of community and care for the grounds is evident. Banning the community from these or other grounds is not the answer. As a community we can all work together with Council to better educate, enforce and call out any irresponsible behaviour so that everyone can enjoy these public spaces.
    • Tanzi over 1 year ago
      Hi Dianne

      The off-leash section on the Hobart Rivulet track is a small area, too small for the 577 registered dogs living in South Hobart.

      There are no off-lead areas in the Cascades area of South Hobart, or Fern Tree. People from Dynnyrne, Fern Tree and West Hobart also bring their dogs to South Hobart Recreation Ground (Oval) and Wellesley Park for off-leash exercise because of the lack of off-leash areas in those suburbs.

      South Hobart is a wonderful suburb with many community-minded residents who must not be excluded from local parks. I'm a long term resident of South Hobart and regularly exercise my dogs at both Wellesley Park and South Hobart Oval. I find both ovals to be well maintained and clean thanks to the Council, Bushcare volunteers, and the many responsible dog owners who pick up after their dogs, and dispose of droppings in the bins provided by Council.
    • Doggo1 over 1 year ago
      I walk my dog in all three areas and have had near accidents with cyclists on the Rivulet track a number of times. The cyclists travel through in a pac, they don't ring bells, they speed and then complain if your dog is on a lead, but walking a meter away from you.

      All it needs is for a lead to get tangled in a wheel or a dog to get startled by the dozen or so bikes whizzing by.

      Of course it would be my fault....not the cyclists
      Hide reply (1)
      • Tina over 1 year ago
        I agree with you. I'm a cyclist and have used that track and a dog walker 'on lead only'. I have walked in that area and will not walk on the track as its too dangerous to walk my small dog with fast cyclists coming up from behind. I choose to walk on the grass alongside and stay off the track.
  • DavidH over 1 year ago
    I note the correction from Council, that it is not intended to ban dogs from the Pipeline Track.

    I still have a concern about bannng dogs from Radford’s Track. Although I understand the difficulties managing this track and the potential conflict with cyclists speeding downhill, Radford’s provides the only reasonable connection from the lower mountain to the other walking tracks originating from the Springs. The Fingerpost Track appears to still allow dogs on leads, but several sections are too steep to be easily accessible for many dogs and their owners.
    Hide reply (1)
    • RT_FernTree over 1 year ago
      I agree with this and other similar points. It is also worth noting that with development of better trails elsewhere (and since the installation of the chicanes on the lower section of Radfords several years ago), Radfords is much less used mountain bikers than it was in the past. I (along with most of the other mountain bikers that I know) now mainly use it as a climbing trail. As such, potential conflict with cyclists is much less of an issue than it may have been in past (if it ever was).
  • svogel over 1 year ago
    a map of the individual on lead, off lead and prohibited areas would be highly useful.
  • Jenniwrenn over 1 year ago
    Clear colour-coded maps of prohibited, on-lead and off-lead areas would be incredibly useful. For instance there are prohibited areas at both Sandy Bay Battery and Blinky Billy Point, but also off-lead areas. A written description of the boundaries is OK, but still leaves a margin for error. Maps of all the key areas (including which tracks on the mountain) would make it so much easier to comply with the rules.
  • kBob over 1 year ago
    A a user of John Turnbull park in Lenah Valley, I think that it is a highly successful model that should be replicated in more locations. Fenced off the lead areas for dogs that can be designed to fit the site specific elements. People who don't like dogs, or who are overly scared of dog excrement, need never enter.
  • Wayne over 1 year ago
    South Hobart recreation grounds at D'Arcy St and Wellesley Park and other public spaces should continue to available for use by all members of the community when sport is not being played including dogs and their owners.
    I very much support the Council's position on this in Dog Strategy. It is reasonable, considered and fair for all members of the community.
    I understand the South Hobart Football President wanting dogs banned however I encourage her to work with the Hobart Dog Walking Association, Council and local residents to improve signage, education, survelliance and enforcement the existing rules to address any irresponsible activity.
    No one likes to see 'bans' imposed particularly public use of community facilities which encourages physical activity and social interaction of local residents and their canine companions.
    I encourage anyone who may be thinking of supporting a ban to visit these grounds early of a morning or of an evening to see how the grounds are being used by responsible owners and their dogs and the sense of community that has developed.
  • Macca1 over 1 year ago
    Mount Stuart Park (Benjafield Terrace) is a terribly underutilised park principally because of the no-dog policy from 9 am to 7 pm. This is a policy seemingly introduced without any consuation.Indeed any observer will see that it is primarily empty of people during the day. It is the ideal location for responsible dog-owners to exercise their animals off-lead at a time when going bush in summer over Knocklofty could be a danger courtesy of snakes. Dogs are not permitted near the adjoining playground but the remainder of the park should be well utilised. Accessing the nearest off-lead areas (Lenah Valley, Cornelian Bay) require car use for Mount Stuart residents. The sign indicating restricted hours should simply say the park is off-limits for dogs on or off-lead while the park is in use by school or sporting groups.
  • Lucy over 1 year ago
    It is clearly stated in the new draft plan that dogs are not to be permitted on Queen's domain and around the soldiers memorial Community Hub yet there are still dogs within this area especially around and within the brand new children's park. Despite signage, small children and adults, have to deal with dogs off lead or if they are on lead they are tied to the posts right next to the Disability access so any child or disabled person trying to access area need to get past a dog, and no matter how friendly the owner says the dog is, it is still an issue. More prominent signage maybe required.
  • kBob over 1 year ago
    I think that instead of outright banning dogs from areas, there should be a regime of fines. Those of us who are responsible dog owners would have no fear, and the irresponsible ones would fund more dog parks like John Turnbull. I love wildlife too, and incidents such as the penguins up north should carry fines of $50k and mandatory jail terms. Simply Banning areas for dogs and then leaving it to the community to get into fights and arguments among themselves won't work either. In fact, it will most likely lead to more assault incidents - not a good outcome for anyone. Expand, do not contract, on lead areas, and implement fines in the hundreds of dollars for bad behaviours. The same should go for parents of children who engage in behaviours where their children cause damage. The pocketbook is the best deterrent. Pitting the community against one another is not the answer, and the divisive comments show just that. People will not pay attention to a 'ban' on the pipeline track, and it will lead to more hassles for the council from the ensuing conflicts. I see no net gain by a ban, only from the revenue generated by fines.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Tina over 1 year ago
      kBob - good on you. I agree council needs to issue infringements for non compliance - especially off leash dogs. As a responsible dog owner who is constantly impacted by off leash dogs I would welcome it. Why is nobody else talking about this? Its human nature that people don't follow rules/the law unless there are consequences. Please HCC start fining people!! Even sending out an officer to wander up a beach and advise people is not enough. They will be back the next day. I have seen it happen. I agree with kBob above. I've also seen conflict between people due to dogs being off leash when they should not be. There are many instances of people having their dogs injured by other dogs running off leash illegally. Most of these I believe the council never hear about. Being proactive in fining owners for ignoring regulations rather than reactive and waiting for reports of attacks is needed.
  • Jenny Sheridan over 1 year ago
    I have to question all those people who report dog poo not being picked up from the Wellesley oval, whether you are actually seeing wallaby poo? I rarely notice dog poo on the oval at all and I am visit the oval a few times every week. However, there are loads of wallabies in the surrounding bush and lots of wallaby poo around! Perhaps Morton's should invest in a wallaby proof fence surrounding the oval and perhaps innocent dog owners will no longer be blamed!
    Hide Replies (2)
    • casibley over 1 year ago
      Thank you, Jenny, for your comments. My experience reflects your views. I have lived in South Hobart for 30 years and a dog owner through this period. I regularly exercise my dog in shared spaces in South Hobart and it is not my experience to notice dog poo on ovals and I sincerely hope the HCC will take sensible steps to continue to provide open shared spaces for dog walkers. thanks Catherine
    • a dog over 1 year ago
      i totally agree
  • saltyros2 over 1 year ago
    How disappointing it is that the South Hobart Soccer Club has caused such division in our inclusive community of South Hobart.
    We congratulate the soccer club on engaging with players from all over Hobart. But the South Hobart community must have the right to use these public facilities when there are no soccer activities.
    Come on SHSC - share with us please!
  • ABC over 1 year ago
    Dogs should be confined to people's own homes and gardens. If places must be provided for them to exercise/defecate they should be fully fenced.
    Dog wardens must be available 24 hours a day to strictly enforce regulations.
    The presence of dogs in an area spoils that area for those people who wish to have a dog free environment. This is true whether or not the dog is on a lead.
  • Wentworth over 1 year ago
    South Hobart Football Club need to stop whinging and get over themselves. They do not own the D'Arcy street ground but they think they do. I live over the road from the soccer ground and I have never whinged about not being able to park outside my house on match day). They want to ban dogs from the ground but use the park a handful of times a year? Dog owners are owners 365 days of the year. Exactly how many match days are there please? Are the South Hobart Football club rate payers? Do the South Hobart Football Club pick up all the rubbish left behind on match day? I DONT THINK SO.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Doggo1 over 1 year ago
      Rubbish left behind by the precious soccer players....who would have thought! Try socks, jumpers, shoes, drink bottles. food wrappers...and yes even condoms. The fields gets completely wreaked at both Wellesley and D'Arcy St oval during the seasons - not by dogs but by players. Heaven forbid an animal (dog/wallaby/pademelonmight) might leave a poo...which breaks down!
  • Milton Moody over 1 year ago
    Although I am not a Hobart City rate payer I regularly stay with my partner in Wentworth Street, South Hobart and feel strongly for the residents who uses these wonderful Ovals.
    I have a dog and walk up to Wellesley Park and have always been impressed with the way the Oval is kept and the way the dog walkers and people exercising respect the Oval. My partner has been walking her dogs in this vicinity over 30 years.
    I am yet to see any evidence of "dog poo" but on several occasions noticed Wallaby Poo. I know the difference, I live in Geilston Bay and we have our own visiting Wallaby who we enjoy.
  • a dog over 1 year ago
    Only a minority of dog owners leave there dogs waste on the ground. This effects all other dog owners who do the right thing. This leaves the non dog community with a bad impression of all dog owners.
  • Timothy Wescombe over 1 year ago
    I am Hobart City Rate payer and have lived in South Hobart for 25 plus years.
    I used to walk my dog at Wentworth Park and feel that the Rate payers are entitled to use this Oval as it has been used over many many years. I no longer have a dog but feel strongly for the rights of those residents who have been using these ovals over the years. We should share, we as rate payers own these ovals they shouldn't be exclusive for a group to use for just a few hours a week.
    I might also point out that a lot of the Soccer people are not Hobart Rate payers.
    Recently I walked my business partners dog up to Wellesley Park and was very impressed with the state of the Oval and I did not see any evidence of doggy doos.
    Let the dog owners stay please - they need exercise too and South Hobart is a very hilly suburb and these 2 ovals make it easier some of our elder residents to enjoy a walk and exercise at the same time.
  • Hobart over 1 year ago
    I am not a dog owner but frequently visit a number of the Declared Areas. On the occasions when I have seen a dog and its owner in these areas there have been no instances when inappropriate control and management of their dog has been obvious. My opinion is that there has been an improvement in owners dog management over past years, for example picking up dog droppings. This has been encouraged by HCCs provision of bags at entrances to park walkways. HCCs document regarding Declared Areas sets appropriate levels of responsibility to the benefit of the Community and our parks and reserves.
  • tarfin over 1 year ago
    Prohibited Areas.
    Assistance dogs in all categories to be exempt from all prohibitions.
    Prohibited Areas to include all of the area bounded by the outermost property boundary in the Harrington – Davey – Campbell – Bathurst Street grid.
    This area is where there are likely to be elderly shoppers, those in poor health, children and babies in prams and pushers. Even if they only feel uncomfortable with a dog nearby, a better time can be had by all if the dogs are not there.

    Re the Regatta Grounds - Cenotaph area: The whole dot point needs removal, as the medical emergency landing area function is to move to the new RHH facility, probably by the time that the Dog Management Policy comes into effect.

    Re Salamanca Market and Salamanca Square: Should read … during the hours between 5.30am and 3.00pm on market days.

    Off-Lead Exercise Areas.
    Cartwright Point Reserve - below Sandy Road.
    This area needs to have its own car parking area, as that available on Sandy Bay Road is often taken up by residents’ vehicles.

    Queens Domain Radio Station Area.
    The Summit Loop road is soon to be decommissioned and the area description needs to be re-written.

    Restricted Areas.
    The opening paragraph is hard to comprehend even after several readings and either needs to be re-written or have a better layout.
    Beaches and Bushland
    Same as above. Perhaps highlight the words “On- Lead” and “Off- Lead” and separate the two instances.
  • Ann over 1 year ago
    As a resident and rate payer of South Hobart for almost 30 years and a regular walker to Wellesley Park it was delightful this morning at 8am to see several residents with their dogs all happily enjoying a morning stroll on this wonderful park which would stand idle 90% of the time if dogs were banned from here. Please retain the access for dogs and owners at both Wellesley and Wentworths Park just as it's been since I've been in South Hobart.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Tanzi over 1 year ago
      Wonderful people regularly walk their dogs at Wellesley Park and South Hobart Oval. Walking my dog in both places has helped me get to meet fantastic members of the South Hobart community. I would have not met these people had it not been for our dogs. Banning dogs from South Hobart Oval or Wellesley Park would severely limit where people could walk their dogs. We also enjoy meeting the out of area dog owners who bring their dogs to Wellesley Park and South Hobart Oval.
  • Gal over 1 year ago
    The South Hobart soccer grounds are wonderful areas for the community to enjoy with and without dogs. I often delight in seeing children running and tumbling, kite flying, picnickers and dogs playing. The oval is maintained beautifully throughout the year by the council though gets torn up within a month of the commencement soccer season. Single use plastic bottles litter the oval after soccer practice and games as well as bits of plastic gaffer tape. Dogs owners actually look after their local environment including the much loved ovals.
  • Peter Franklin over 1 year ago
    Girrabong Play Area
    This park has effectively been made very uninviting and too daunting to take kids to, simply because of the prevalence of dogs.
    The COH proposal to make it open off-lead between 9.00am to 7:00pm should be cut to 10.00am to 5:00pm as that would at least restrict the often excessive noise of barking away to less hours and these hours are when I imagine animal management officers are working, and could this visit, educate and if necessary, take further action where the owner ignores request. As a consequence, dogs should be prohibited between 5:00pm to 10:00am
    It is vital that COH animal management officers visit the park and educate the dog owners about their responsibility to avoid excessive barking. Dog owners need to be aware that other people in the community find barking animals offensive and spoil the surrounding living areas amenity.
    The overall dog management plan does not seem to include barking in public places such as this playground, it seems to mostly assume the dog is barking at the owner’s residence. However excessive barking is often elsewhere, including parks.
    Signs should be erected the inform people about the hours of use and the various responsibilities of owners, including avoiding excessive barking of their dog.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • SBS over 1 year ago
      I love the Girrabong/Firth Road park as it is one of the areas where I can take my 7 year old nephew and my dog to play, in a small secure space. JTP is often very busy and overwhelming for my nephew and elderly dog, so we find this park perfect. We often meet other families there with kids also to play. Working full time we don't finish until after 5pm, so the proposed 7pm cut off allows us to socialise in this space. There's a fantastic community there who use this park and I've always found them really inviting and friendly.
    • NB over 1 year ago
      The difficulty is that the Girrabong Play area is too small for the many dogs that often frequent the park. Whist the majority of owners are responsible there are real concerns with the level of barking. The other issue that needs to be addressed is the failure of some owners too properly manage their dogs and stop them from charging the fences when pedestrians and cars are passing by. People who live in the neighbourhood are entitled to expect that they can walk by the park without a dog charging at the fence and jumping up at them often accompanied by barking. The Council if it intends to stand by a decision to permit dogs in the play area needs to also consider the interests of all who may be affected.
  • tigertwo49 over 1 year ago
    Thank you for the opportunity to contribute feedback to the draft Dog Management Policy and Proposed Declared Areas document.
    I believe the South Hobart Oval and Wellesley Park should be included in the exclusion areas for dogs.
    These are sports ground for one of the major sports in our state.
    Those who play on the South Hobart Oval ground are among the elite within this sport both in our state and from interstate.
    This ground was built as a sports ground for humans not as a dog training or exercising ground for animals.
    It is wrong to be investing infrastructure upgrades at both these grounds for human use whilst allowing dog dung and urine to cause health issues with humans who use the facilities. This is unfair as an impost upon those users who pay considerably to undertake the sports associated with these grounds.
    The clubs who utilise the facilities at these grounds pay for their use but those who bring dogs onto the playing surfaces do so without such contribution.
    The resident club at both these grounds would be ranked amongst the top football clubs in our state in all sports for its achievements and should not be subjected to this continual filth from animal owners. The club in tenancy is one of the oldest within Australia and is deserving of greater respect and especially considering their contribution to the city, community and youth development.
    The South Hobart Oval has much heritage linked with it and Wellesley Park is a major development ground for junior sport in Tasmania.
    To own a dog requires accepting responsibilities and those who do own dogs and want areas for dog exercising should be contributing financially to the creation of these as specially built for purpose away from humans who do not want their excrement.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • South Hobart Taxpayer and ratepayer over 1 year ago
      To Tigertwo49 who wrote "... those who do own dogs and want areas for dog exercising should be contributing financially to the creation of these as specially built for purpose".

      South Hobart dog owners are contributing financially by paying rates, dog registration and taxes which become government grants to sporting clubs. We don't mind if the Council creates specially built dog parks, however, public land is in short supply in South Hobart (and other Hobart suburbs) so realistically sharing sports fields is the only way.

      The South Hobart Recreation Ground (Oval) and Wellesley Park were not created as only "sports grounds for humans". Read "Beneath the Mountain" by Dr Alison Alexander and note how cows used to be grazed at the South Hobart Recreation Ground and how the park was used for a range of community and sporting activities.

      South Hobart residents have been exercising their dogs at Wellesley Park for decades. It's a shared community park.

      As a resident of South Hobart, I've become disenchanted with the South Hobart Football Club's unwillingness to share. It's very "un-South Hobart".

      I couldn't care less how elite the soccer players are who play on South Hobart Oval or Wellesley Park. I'm more impressed by the admirable, community-minded dog owners and wonderful dogs.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • tilleytwo49 over 1 year ago
        Piffle and if this was the case then no-one would be living or playing in the area but cows. I remind all such commenters that those who play at SHO and Wellesley Park contribute a damn lot more than deficating dogs which should be kept in their owners beds if they love them so much and not on our sports grounds. Such comments are really why this city could easily be called dogbart. You are entitled to share your animalistic tendencies with them but not with us.
        Hide reply (1)
        • South Hobart ratepayer and taxpayer over 1 year ago
          To tilleytwo49
          Can you quantify and qualify how those who "play (soccer presumably) at SHO and Wellesley Park contribute a lot more" than dogs? There's no way dogs caused the damage to Wellesley Park Oval that was very trashed after all the soccer over-use last winter. The oval was very degraded. The more players the soccer club and Morton's Soccer School put on the oval, the more money the soccer club and Morton's make. I don't mind sports clubs and businesses making money. However, when I note a soccer club is receiving Govt grants and assistance from Council, but the club wants to exclude the local community, I don't think this is right.
          My question:
          What cost to ratepayers of rehabilitating Wellesley park and South Hobart oval after all the soccer overuse?
      • Sara over 1 year ago
        Well said 'South Hobart Taxpayer and ratepayer'! I studied architecture at university which included studies of urban spaces and cities - constantly outlining the benefits of diverse uses of public land. With limited land in South Hobart, we really can't afford to be segregating user groups. And i know for a fact that the members of South Hobart that do use the grounds for dog walking, do respect the ground and many of them are also involved in the Hobart soccer community.
  • skywalker over 1 year ago
    South Hobart oval and Wellesley Park, have long been shared spaces for all our community. On most days there are dog walkers, families and children, and many different sports being practised and played by all ages. We all share and enjoy these spaces, and have done so for many years. I have walked dogs here in South Hobart for around 15 years now, my husband and kids have played soccer here, and we've used it for many other recreational activities.I note in previous comments there is a lot of talk re dog droppings and have to say, I find it quite extraordinary that this has become an issue. I might occasionally find (and pick up) a stray dog dropping, but having done a more vigilant 'dog log' log in the last 2 weeks, have only found 1 very small dog poo near a bin, and none on the oval itself. I have however found lots of wallaby poo, which I don't pick up. I note there has been a fairly concerted social media campaign by SHFC, entirely concerning the issue of dog droppings, and wonder if this is where the misinforformation has come from. I thank the Hobart City Council for recognising that many of our sporting grounds are shared public spaces, and hope that the current dog management plan which keeps both South Hobart ovals as shared spaces is retained.
  • CassL over 1 year ago
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. The South Hobart oval and Wellesley Park should remain open to all sectors of the community, including for responsible dog owners and their dogs. It is important that these and other sporting grounds remain true shared public spaces and do not exclude people unnecessarily. I hope the Hobart City Council recognises the importance of maintaining access to these areas.
  • Cate Andrews over 1 year ago
    Please keep Wellesley Park and South Hobart Oval as shared use areas for all of the community, including dogs and dog owners. As long-term South Hobart residents, our 2 sons have played soccer at both of these ovals with Morton's Soccer School and with school teams. We have never found dog faeces to be a problem. We have now just adopted our first dog, and find ourselves regularly exercising her around Wellesley Park. As we have a small yard, we rely particularly on Wellesley park which is in very close proximity to our house. It is not just the dogs that benefit from being exercised, but the dog owners and their families too. Big thanks to HCC, Bushcare, volunteers and sporting clubs for their valuable contributions to these shared spaces.
  • VaughanA over 1 year ago
    I support Hobart City Council providing continued access for dogs and owners on South Hobart Oval and Wellesley Park. As a dog owner I think its vital to maintain access to a place where dogs can exercise off lead as there are limited local options. This also provides exercise and a social outing for the owners and their children which is important in today's society. These ovals are unused for sports for much of the time and it doesn't make sense for them to be off limits to dogs during this time. They should be available for everyone and their dogs.
  • JodiB over 1 year ago
    The Darcy St and Wellesley ovals should be open for the community to use. If they are just for the exclusive use of soccer teams then they would remain locked up and unused for roughly 90 percent of the time. They are great spaces to be used not just by dogs and their owners but by everyone in the community. I often see people playing “backyard” cricket and other sports on Darcy Street oval. Most people don’t have big backyards anymore so spaces such as these ovals in the inner city suburbs are crucial.
  • PhilK over 1 year ago
    I have lived in the South Hobart Area for 10 years, and use the Darcy Street oval on a daily basis. Whether it is allowing my dog to have a run, socializing with other dog and non dog owners or playing with my children , it is a wonderful social gathering point, and used by a great many people who live in and around the area.I also love soccer and see no reason why the two can not co exist, as they have done so for many years. In fact I believe that dog owners have become more responsible over the years, which has resulted in less stray dogs and dog dropping,not only in of lead areas such as Darcy Street but also suburban footpaths.

    I make it a point when walking around the oval to look for dog poo, and in the last two week have only seen one dog poo on the outer edge, and one Wallaby poo, both of which were picked up and placed in the bin. Many other responsible dog owners I have spoken to would do the same, on the rare occasion that they see a stray dropping.

    Darcy St and Wellesley St Ovals should remain open to the General public .
  • bella_the_dog over 1 year ago
    Hi my name is Liam and I'm 12 years old and I have a dog that needs a lot of exercise every day because we have a small yard. Wellesley park and south Hobart oval are great places to walk my dog. She can fetch balls, roll around and meet other dogs. She loves it. I used to do Morton's soccer school. When I did it, I never saw any dog poos on the ovals. Even now I don't see dog poos. If I did see a dog poo, I would pick it up and put it in the bin. Please HCC keep Wellesley park and south Hobart oval open for dogs on and off leads.
  • Dan Andrews over 1 year ago
    Hi HCC
    I think Wellesley Park and South Hobart Oval are great places to walk and run with your dogs. I used to play for Mortons at Wellesley Oval and I never saw any dog poo or dog wee. It’s a safe, fun place to go just over the road from my house. When I was younger, I also had lots of practice walking and riding there, and playing at the playground. I think it is a horrible idea to keep the ovals just for soccer practice, because then all the people that use it for dog walking don’t get it use it anymore. What a waste of a great space.
  • Pateena Walker over 1 year ago
    I love walking my dog at South Hobart Oval and Wellesley Park. Both these areas are popular with local residents and their dogs. The vast majority of people clean up after their dogs. It is easy as dog poo bags and bins are provided. Please continue to allow us to exercise our dogs in these areas.
  • Phil H over 1 year ago
    Firstly Congratulations to HCC on the development of the only true Dog Park at JTP in Lenah Valley. A well planed facility that the council has committed to on going continuous improvements. But one Dog Park in the City of Hobart is not sufficient to exercise all the dogs. The selfishness shown by the Soccer Association in wanting to lock up other shared areas is disappointing as these areas belong to the public, in particular the rate payers of Hobart, of which there are many who are also Dog Owners who also pay a further fee. Please do not lock up these areas as it will deprive those that help fund these multi purpose facilities of their right to access. The primary interest is in the ongoing use of the park areas as a safe and supportive environment for dog owners to socialise and exercise their dogs on Lead & off lead. It is important as I’m sure most would agree to ensure the behaviour of dogs in general is enhanced by socialisation and it also provide invaluable opportunities in health and wellbeing for dog owners as well, as they exercise at the same time.
  • Mel B over 1 year ago
    Thank you to the City of Hobart for the opportunity to comment on the draft of its Dog Management Strategy and proposed Declared Areas. As a dog owner and South Hobart resident I feel very lucky to be able to access and utilise the services and amenities made available for dog owners within our community.

    I am a regular and responsible user of the recreational grounds within South Hobart, including the Wellesley Park ground and the South Hobart Oval. I am one of a large number of South Hobart residents who utilise these spaces to recreate with their dogs, families and friends and do so in a way that is respectful, inclusive and considerate of others.

    I understand that there have been representations made to the City of Hobart by the Soccer Club utilising these grounds for the football playing season, attempting to have dogs banned from the grounds. It would be an extremely disappointing circumstance that would see these grounds cordoned off for one sport to the detriment of a broader array of activities that have co-existed previously. It would be ideal if we could have more wonderful 'John Turnbull Parks' established around our urban areas to accommodate dogs exclusively, however this is simply not a feasible option - both in terms of cost and the availability of suitable space. The same can be said of sporting fields!

    We have to work together and compromise in order to be able to undertake the various pastimes that we enjoy - ultimately so that we can all have fun, keep active and live life to the full. As a dog owner I will never have a problem with not being able to use the grounds when sport is being played - that makes perfect sense to me. Just as maximising the recreational value and usage of these areas when sport isn't being played makes a whole lot of sense too.

    I look forward to continuing to share with everyone the recreational grounds that the City of Hobart maintains for all of us.
  • Bel over 1 year ago
    As a resident (ratepayer & taxpayer) of 14 years living in South Hobart and a responsible dog owner I have regularly used the Wellesley Park oval and surrounding grounds to exercise my dog and I support the shared use rules remain in place for both Wellesley Park & South Hobart Oval for all the community including dog owners, families and sports clubs.
  • Sara over 1 year ago
    As a past member of the South Hobart community, I support continued access for dogs and owners to D’Arcy Street recreation ground and Wellesely Park ground and other grounds when sport is not being played. The proximity of these grounds to surrounding residents is a great benefit for morning time constraints, and I met a great group of regular visitors to the D'Arcy St ground during my time living in the area. I am also a soccer player and have never experienced miss treatment of these grounds by dogs and/or their owners.
    Well done for providing these facilities for the use and enjoyment of ALL members of our community.
  • Fern Tree resident over 1 year ago
    Please keep dog access to the South Hobart ovals. As a Fern Tree Resident who also walks their dog in Sth Hobart it is great to have a open space that is easy to access and flat. Much of the area we have to access in Fern Tree or Sth Hobart is not flat or open. Placement of bins and bags for dog waste in a number of places within the areas will assist in owners being able to clean up after their dog. The areas are community areas for us all to use.