Track Signage for Lawyers?

[corvus]

Good post climberman because in the long run if someone wins a claim it is us "joe public" who end up paying .
corvus

[Liamy77]

why not include a disclaimer agreement of some sort into the parks passes...



they forgot "heart attack" if there is a steep bit.... [EDIT: oh no they didn't... and i was just kidding!!!!]

Perhaps just a warning sign that "natural selection" may be harmful to mentally deficient walkers ... you know -just to cover the lot with one sign to save parks funding?????
Otherwise let em go... more second hand gear for the rest of us!

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hehehe Nice!! But ohhh your bad for me Liamy. I cant resists,

Anyone know the comedian Bill Hicks??

WE JUST LOST ANOTHER IDIOT? GOOD!! THE WORLD JUST GOT LIGHTER, YIPEEEEE

[jcr_au]

Hehehe Nice!! But ohhh your bad for me Liamy. I cant resists,

Anyone know the comedian Bill Hicks??

WE JUST LOST ANOTHER IDIOT? GOOD!! THE WORLD JUST GOT LIGHTER, YIPEEEEE

I think you're thinking of Jeff Foxworthy....here's you're sign

[SteveJ]

The new suburb that is being built next to the nature park is a no free roaming cats allowed zone,

....It is OK to build another ugly Canberra suburb on top of 'nature' but heaven forbid a cat gets out?? So very canberra - fundamentalist political correction. It would give me a good laugh if it was not so hypocritical, I suspect the ill planned ugly suburban sprawl may have a tad more environmental impact than a few stray moggies

Steve

[SteveJ]

Great post Climberman.

Steve

[Ent]

The new suburb that is being built next to the nature park is a no free roaming cats allowed zone,

....It is OK to build another ugly Canberra suburb on top of 'nature' but heaven forbid a cat gets out?? So very canberra - fundamentalist political correction. It would give me a good laugh if it was not so hypocritical, I suspect the ill planned ugly suburban sprawl may have a tad more environmental impact than a few stray moggies

Steve

Um? I laugh like mad until I realised that the above was happening But fear not they will pass a law forbiding swiming in a remote creek in the NT by school kids to make up for this by using the phrases, presitine, or grab another thousand or so hectares of land to fill with yet more signs in Tassie.

Cheers Brett

[north-north-west]

The new suburb that is being built next to the nature park is a no free roaming cats allowed zone,

....It is OK to build another ugly Canberra suburb on top of 'nature' but heaven forbid a cat gets out?? So very canberra - fundamentalist political correction. It would give me a good laugh if it was not so hypocritical, I suspect the ill planned ugly suburban sprawl may have a tad more environmental impact than a few stray moggies
Steve

The few stray moggies add to the impact of the suburb.
A cat curfew was declared some years ago in the Dandenongs because of their depredation on the lyrebirds in and around :Sherbrooke forest. The lyrebird population has already improved considerably. A lot of other native birds are also doing much better.
It's only a little thing, it's not hard for pet owners to go along with it, and it makes a very big difference to the native wildlife.
Maybe you could consider joining in, instead of just sneering at those who are trying to reduce our impact on native species.

[SteveJ]

This is getting off topic but...I am not for one second suggesting cats have no impact on the bird populations. However, if you cannot see that urban sprawl has environmental impacts so far beyond cats killing birds, then you may need to look at the bigger picture. Humans and their vast unchecked unsustainable development are the biggest threat to native fauna, flora and general environment. But if banning cats makes Canberra folk living in such developments feel good about their big unsustainable air-conditioned houses, shiny cars and consumer lifestyles, then so be it. Population control may do more favours for your birds though.

As for me "joining in", you should not make assumptions.


Steve

[north-north-west]

Paragraph 1: Right on, but it's not exactly what I was getting at.

Paragraph 2: Quite right, my apologies.

[walkinTas]

I have always thought it a little two faced when we live in cities and contribute to the mindless urban sprawl, yet readily criticise the environmental practices of others at the same time. Something about people who live in glass houses (or work in glass covered sky scrapers).

On the other hand Steve, domestic, stray and feral cats do impact on smaller mammals and birds.

The real problem in debating this topic is finding good evidence to support the argument. More research is desirable on the environmental impact of urban sprawl and on the environmental impact of cats.

You might start by reading this Wikipedia article. And after considering that authors opinion take a look at the references and the articles he/she used as his/her sources. Like this pdf file.

[SteveJ]

On the other hand Steve, domestic, stray and feral cats do impact on smaller mammals and birds.

I have never said they don't and am fully aware of the impacts of feral cats.

I have always thought it a little two faced when we live in cities and contribute to the mindless urban sprawl, yet readily criticise the environmental practices of others at the same time. Something about people who live in glass houses (or work in glass covered sky scrapers).

Not all of us live the same life or even live in cities surfice to say I am pretty far removed from urban/suburban living but that is another huge deviation form the topic that I have already hijacked enough.

Steve