PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Dogs and hiking



dropkick
2005-09-04, 01:36
I hike with my dog all the time, but lately I've been seeing signs that they might tighten rules and restrictions on dogs on public lands, and I don't like it.
How do you feel?

dropkick
2005-09-04, 01:47
In Montana if your dog runs a deer or elk it can be legally shot by anyone who sees it doing so. I support this. Train your dog, or keep him leashed.
However, my dog is trained to ignore big game (also cattle and horses - for which it also can be legally shot) and I feel perfectly within my rights to have him running loose beside me as I hike.
I don't want, or support, new regulation as I feel that what is already there is sufficent, it only needs enforcing.

I support hiking with dogs.

jimtanker
2005-09-04, 02:21
I dont currently have a dog but when I did mine was well trained. Its those few that dont/wont train thier dogs that ruin it for the rest of us.

Seeker
2005-09-04, 02:59
i'm of two minds on this...

i hate the average american's idea of dog ownership and training... initial enthusiasm overcome by a job and small kids who aren't disciplined too well either... owner invests no time, and the dog never has a chance to get decently trained. was in a german restaurant years ago and stunned by a dog's obediantly crawling backwards under a table to let me go by when his owner told him to do so... amazing... and then i see the curs my fellow citizens get pulled around the neighborhood by... who's taking who for a walk?

so we have the good dog... a well trained dog, knows it's place, barks once when strangers approach, comes, goes, sits, stays, heels, and retrieves, all on command... a partner in the woods, a joy to travel with, and accepted by all. nice safety net too, when you need someone to keep watch while you're asleep. this owner should be allowed to bring his dog to the woods... he is hurting no one.

and the bad dog...a menace to all, friend to none... we've all read the posts and had the experiences... this dog needs to stay home. or in some cases, as mentioned, shot.

i had a dog as a kid. i don't own one now. but if i did, i'd want to go hiking with it. so, how now, brown cow? (me)....

and the ugly dog... what to do about it...

how about enforcing the law that all dogs must be on a leash or under the owners verbal control at all times... applies on our streets... why not our trails... not that rangers don't already have enough to do, but would the threat of a steep fine for an off-leash or not demonstrably (new word there) verbally-controlled dog be enough to keep unfit owners off the trail? i don't know... but it's not the dogs' fault... it's owners... like guns...

so i guess i'm not in favor of outlawing the dogs... i'm for restricting the bad owners in some way... how to do that is food for another thought, so i'll close this for now and think on it some...

bird dog
2005-09-04, 06:04
As always, well said Seeker. Im with you. Good dog stay, bad dog owners shot...er, I mean bad dogs shot!

GregH
2005-09-04, 13:21
Maybe just shoot the owner in the foot for the first offense with the penalty getting steeper on subsequent offenses. You know, along the lines of "Wall to Wall Counseling."

JAK
2005-09-04, 16:41
Wolves have been domesticating us humans for over 15,000 years. We should allow them to complete the job.

Sgathak
2005-09-09, 12:46
Ever spend time in a CO mountain town?

Almost everyone has their dogs with them. In art galleries, books stores, even restaurants. Most arnt leashed, and when the human goes into a place where dogs are verbotten, the dog just lays down on the sidewalk and goes to sleep.

I was in Breckenridge yesterday. I saw a golden retreiver sleeping in the doorway of a little art shop. I think it was the shops owners dog since there was a sign that said "Dogs Welcome". Along comes a guy with him dog off leash. He walks in along with his dog. BOTH had to step over the Golden "doormat", and neither dog even looked at each other.

The problem isnt the dogs, and the rules dont need "fixed". What needs fixed is enforcement of the existing rules. Have all the rules you want, but if people are allowed to just ignore them, then whats the point of having them to begin with?

Kea
2005-09-09, 14:41
I have a completely darling little dog named Toby. He's part cocker and part lab, and in his own space he's fine. The minute you set a scene with people he doesn't know, or bring in loud and obnoxious strangers, and he's psycho dog.

I took him on the C&O about 6 weeks ago, just to see how he might be on the trail. He flunked big time. As it was a day hike, I called my husband on the radio and had him come pick Toby up and take him home. He'll need a lot of training to be the kind of dog who could be my hiking companion. Until then, I'll hike with one of the kids, or grab a friend to go along. It's not worth it to spend the whole time calming the little guy, and not fair to expect him to be something he's not wired for.

deadeye
2005-09-10, 13:04
My dog stays home. When Fido comes bounding down the trail at me, barking and growling up a froth, I can usually hear the owner yelling "It's OK, he's friendly!"

My reply: "I'm not!"

JAK
2005-09-10, 13:32
Labs are quite popular here and they are very easy dogs to deal with even if the onbes that are boisterous. When I run into them running I feel quite comfortable stopping and getting down to their level to get to now them. The owners often say something like sorry he's not on a leash and I say that's OK, neither am I.

Usually are the troublesome dogs are tied up at home getting worse. People need to think twice about why they are getting a medium to large dog. If it is not to take them for a walk or a run, what is it for?

Sgathak
2005-09-10, 13:35
My dog stays home. When Fido comes bounding down the trail at me, barking and growling up a froth, I can usually hear the owner yelling "It's OK, he's friendly!"

My reply: "I'm not!"

Which then comes back to enforcement of leash/control laws.

You wouldnt have this problem if the dog were under control, and the dog would be under control (or at home) if the owner were fined a few times for violating the EXTREMELY basic rule "keep your dog under control".

Mutinousdoug
2005-09-10, 18:46
Which then comes back to enforcement of leash/control laws.

You wouldnt have this problem if the dog were under control, and the dog would be under control (or at home) if the owner were fined a few times for violating the EXTREMELY basic rule "keep your dog under control".

That is true Sgathak, but who is going to pay for this "doggie behavior Patrol"? Do you propose trail use fees? I've hunted and camped in the Colorado Rockys since 1976 and NEVER seen a Gamie in the woods...Campgrounds? Yes; checking licences maybe 3-4 times (roadside game checks are pretty common during the rifle seasons). Same with the Floristas (Forest Service), in the campgrounds checking for fireplace violations but almost never get far from their pickup trucks. Summer help college kids do the trail clearing in the Spring. Maybe you could have an other BS fee like search and rescue added to my hunting licences to pay for it?

Where are the cops with the citations books? Answer? "There aren't any"
Maybe the answer is a fee to pay for enforcement, for any dog in any USFS or park area . Make the paid up dog wear a yellow collar...all others are "Open Season". I LIKE this idea!

Sgathak
2005-09-11, 02:08
Ive actually seen a few law enforcement officers in the back country. Granted, its rare... but make the fine steep enough that if you get busted trying to fly under the radar because "there arnt any cops" and your bank account gets hurt real bad..

Yellow collar idea... not bad actually. Im not sure if "open season" is the right way to go, but offer free dog access to anyone willing to volunteer X number of nights out on "dog patrol". It takes minimal training, and plenty of people would be willing to do it.

dropkick
2005-09-11, 08:03
Maybe you could have an other BS fee like search and rescue added to my hunting licences to pay for it?


This is off topic, but I just had to say something - a Search and Rescue fee is only BS until you need them. They both search for and rescue many people in and around my area every year (including my brother a few years back).
Those people you see on t.v. hauling out hikers who have fallen from cliffs, people who had heart attacks, had been mauled by bears, got trapped on a rock in the middle of a river (my brother), got caught in an avalanche - those people are being saved by Search and Rescue.
Those fees you pay don't come close to paying for their services, and even though many of them are volunteers, they often run just on the edge of being broke, or quite often well into the red.
Which is why they sometimes have to charge a fee from the people they rescue, and are all the time trying to get some more money from the Government.
You might as well be saying that the taxes that pay the fire department and the cops is a rip off because you haven't needed them.

Mutinousdoug
2005-09-11, 20:31
Dropkick,
I have no beef with paying for cops and fire protection because Every homeowner pays for that. I pay and expect to pay for insurance and taxes of all types. My beef is having to pay a fee for search and rescue that hikers and other forest users aren't asked to pay. If your brother payed for his rescue (I suspect he didn't, but pardon me if he did), or payed a fee prior to needing the service like I do (maybe via a fishing licence?), I got no beef with him.
A few years back (in Crested Butte, I think) some x-country skiers in Colorado got lost because the big macho competent skiers with them didn't want to wait for the weak members of the group to keep up. Big rescue effort was mounted after the leaders finally got worried that the remainder of their party didn't show up. There was talk at the time of charging the skiers for the rescue effort, but the county rescue org said: "No, No, No, If we charge these people then they won't ask for our help next time." The BS I'm talking about is the charge they assess me whenever I buy a license (Even if I've already BOUGHT a license earlier in the year [ I routinely buy a small game/ fishing lic and until recently, a Deer and and Elk license very year. I'm charged the rescue fee for EACH one.]) This is a fee that is not charged equitably to other users of public lands. And THAT, Dropkick, is BS.

Mutinousdoug
2005-09-11, 20:47
Ive actually seen a few law enforcement officers in the back country. Granted, its rare... but make the fine steep enough that if you get busted trying to fly under the radar because "there arnt any cops" and your bank account gets hurt real bad..

Yellow collar idea... not bad actually. Im not sure if "open season" is the right way to go, but offer free dog access to anyone willing to volunteer X number of nights out on "dog patrol". It takes minimal training, and plenty of people would be willing to do it.
OK Sgathak,
Maybe I engaged in a little hyperbole with the "open season" crack, but as Dropkick mentioned "assumed guilt" is the case in Montana for running big game and I know it was in Wisconsin (well, 30 years ago, when last I checked).
As far as volunteers: great! Just devise a system that pays for itself out of the proceeds from dog owners that want to have their dogs unleashed in the forests. This "verbal control" thing just isn't working because it's not being enforced. It's the same problem with ATVs and dirt bikes. Jeeps, for that matter. i.e.: no enforcement.

Seeker
2005-09-12, 00:33
Dropkick,
I have no beef with paying for cops and fire protection because Every homeowner pays for that. I pay and expect to pay for insurance and taxes of all types. My beef is having to pay a fee for search and rescue that hikers and other forest users aren't asked to pay. If your brother payed for his rescue (I suspect he didn't, but pardon me if he did), or payed a fee prior to needing the service like I do (maybe via a fishing licence?), I got no beef with him.
A few years back (in Crested Butte, I think) some x-country skiers in Colorado got lost because the big macho competent skiers with them didn't want to wait for the weak members of the group to keep up. Big rescue effort was mounted after the leaders finally got worried that the remainder of their party didn't show up. There was talk at the time of charging the skiers for the rescue effort, but the county rescue org said: "No, No, No, If we charge these people then they won't ask for our help next time." The BS I'm talking about is the charge they assess me whenever I buy a license (Even if I've already BOUGHT a license earlier in the year [ I routinely buy a small game/ fishing lic and until recently, a Deer and and Elk license very year. I'm charged the rescue fee for EACH one.]) This is a fee that is not charged equitably to other users of public lands. And THAT, Dropkick, is BS.

so, i think you're saying that everyone should pay the fee for rescue through some sort of licensing... and just once, not each time you buy a different kind of license... and hikers sort of 'skate' by not needing a license...

i'm not a native, but my understanding is that here in louisiana, everyone is required to have a license of some sort to hike on state land. i've always had a fishing license, so i'm covered, but i believe there's something called an outdoor use permit or something that you have to buy, even if you don't hunt or fish... louisiana's different (WAY different) than a lot of the other 49 states in that it's legal system is based on the old Napoleonic Code of law, not English or Roman law... if i'm way off, someone correct me, but seems like i read it on a State Land/Park website...

so getting back on thread, maybe a land use license ($5-$10, with family discount) might not be a bad idea... could pay for search and rescue, add 'dog use' stamp (like waterfowl/trout?), etc...

seems un-American though, somehow...

Mutinousdoug
2005-09-12, 01:38
so, i think you're saying that everyone should pay the fee for rescue through some sort of licensing...
seems un-American though, somehow...

Well, Seeker,that's not what I ment at all. The original thread (if I can remember it) was about dog restrictions on public lands.
The point of my last post was; where anyone has to pay to use public property, then everyone should have to. If I have to pay a search and rescue fee to use the woods, then you should have to as well. If the hikers skate, then hunters should too. I don't care if there is a fee or not. I'll make my decision at the park gate. Just don't make me pay while you "skate".
If dog control is a problem, then dog owners should be required to pay for dog control, not the other users. I can't count the number of horse corrals and trailer turnouts at trailheads I've been to, payed for by whom? Colorado gamblers probably, but it's money that could be spent for "search and rescue", for instance, or "dog control" if DOW didn't extort it from "sportsmen" (as we used to be called). You are already paying for services provided on public property, why should you pay more for actually using the facilities than a person that never goes there? May seem un-American to you, but not to me: pay at the point of service for the service rendered. But charge all the USERS the same price. (discounts for Sgathak's volunteers, at a rate comenserate with service provided)
Oh, and as far as the search and rescue fee I pay with my fishing license? Make it an option: pay the fee or pay the rescue cost. Pretty simple. Make it available to hikers at any USFS outlet. You could have an unmanned box at any trailhead with a checkoff box: 1) Search and Rescue 2) unleashed dog 3) Roadapple retrieval 4) Hot bath

Seeker
2005-09-12, 02:30
no, that's not really what i meant about 'un-american'... i was referring to the part about paying to use public land, which is why it was set aside for public use in the first place. hope that's cleared up... i agree with you about the S&R fees though... not fair to apply them only to 'sportsmen', and then in multiples per type of license...

weekender
2005-09-12, 07:38
I hike with my dog all the time but then the laws are proberly different here then in the states, the rule of thumb here is if there is a notice telling you so and or annimals around (ie, cattle, sheep etc) then you should put your dog on a leash. However so as not to spoil my dogs time out with me i assess an area or look for an area which has been designated for allowing your dog to be off his lead and go there a good day out is had by all.
For going away for the weekend he stays at home so as not to put temptation in his path, Hes a good dog just not a great one as far as training is concerned, all training was in one ear and out the other!!!! :rolleyes: