PDA

View Full Version : Dog Poll...Should they be allowed on the AT?



Pages : [1] 2

Ridge
11-10-2004, 21:26
I think its time to Poll other hikers concerning the matter of dogs on the AT. Out of concern for wildlife(spread of Parvo from dogs) and respect to other hikers a vote should be taken. PS: I do have a dog, he stays at home (because of these concerns).

steve hiker
11-10-2004, 23:06
Dogs don't belong on the AT or any hiking trail. There's sort of a regression that takes place with dog and owner when in the wild. A couple years ago, I was hiking to a hotspring when a couple allowed their dog to intimidate me at a trail junction just to prove a point. These jerks were also camping "next" to the hotspring.

I got my revenge by hiking out the next day, opening their car, taking a dump on the drivers seat and pissing on the passenger seat. I wanted to make their experience as nice as mine. I actually have a friend who shot and killed two charging dobermans at a state park. The owners were pissed but had no recourse; he only got a $50 fine for shooting a gun at the park.

orangebug
11-10-2004, 23:16
I guess that was the 21st repetition of this tired story lacking in credibility.

grrickar
11-11-2004, 00:21
I have a dog but I don't feel compelled to take it with me. Some may have tame dogs that are very obedient, but I find that those are the exception to the rule.

In the GSMNP if I'm not mistaken you are not supposed to take dogs on the trails. It didn't stop one guy that we met at Double Springs Shelter. He was asleep in the shelter with the large german shepherd and the bear gate was closed. The dog growled menacingly at anyone who got near the shelter. The guy sleeping in there was taking a nap in the middle of the day. If I did have a reason to want to go into the shelter, I would not have felt comfortable doing so.
As far as adhering to LNT principles, do those who take their dogs on the trail bury their waste?

Pencil Pusher
11-11-2004, 01:38
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/gsmsite/justforfun.html#hiking

Info on pets in GSMNP. I like dogs and petting other dogs I come across on the trail.

Dances with Mice
11-11-2004, 07:31
I guess that was the 21st repetition of this tired story lacking in credibility.
Always the same rendition, word for word, too. I like the "I actually have a friend..." part.

Ramble~On
11-11-2004, 08:33
No.
Leave Fido at home.

Youngblood
11-11-2004, 08:45
This issue is more complex than you seem to realize. We share trails with day hikers, tourist, hunters, etc... it might be more correct to say that they share trail with us because we are probably in the minority. They could take a poll and maybe banish the smelly backpackers that go days/weeks without bathing and are always looking for handouts, rides into town, etc.

Youngblood

Peaks
11-11-2004, 08:52
Dogs are a hot button issue. And most of us who have been out on the trail for any length of time have probably had some bad experiences with dogs that were not properly restrained. But I suspect that these are the exception rather than the rule.

So, banning dogs entirely is a little like banning all thru-hikers because of the actions of a few.

For what it's worth, most dog owners that I met on the trail have been very considerate, and if it looked like there might be a problem, they simply moved on without asking.

Tu_cubed
11-11-2004, 09:28
Of course people should be allowed to bring dogs on the trail.

However; if you fail to control your dog I have no problems with killing and grilling. :)

Kagogi yum yum!

Tu

Magic City
11-11-2004, 11:24
I am opposed to people taking dogs on the trail. My cat doesn't like them.

Jaybird
11-11-2004, 12:16
Reave Rover Rat Rome! Roof-Roof! [/:D

MOWGLI
11-11-2004, 12:29
Dogs are a hot button issue. And most of us who have been out on the trail for any length of time have probably had some bad experiences with dogs that were not properly restrained. But I suspect that these are the exception rather than the rule.

So, banning dogs entirely is a little like banning all thru-hikers because of the actions of a few.

For what it's worth, most dog owners that I met on the trail have been very considerate, and if it looked like there might be a problem, they simply moved on without asking.

Good point Peaks.

Try walking 2176 miles on back roads from GA to ME, and see how many dog encounters you have. Thats one reason I hate road walks. Especially in the south. Grrrrrrr.

The Wicked Lobstah
11-11-2004, 12:36
You're never going to be able to stop stupid people from doing anything, including bringing dogs who don't belong on the trail out on the trail (and I agree that that includes MOST dogs). However banning dogs on the AT is NOT the solution. The AT is thankfully located in America and stupid, sweeping bans like that are not what this country is about.

My dog Buddy completed the CAT (Canine Appalachian Trail) this year and did a great job. He didn't intimidate or poop on anyone or sloppy anyone up. He is polite and wonderful. At least according to the feedback that I received, everyone who met Buddy was delighted to have had the opportunity to have done so; even those who "hate dogs."

I wish people would stop trying to "ban" everything. Just relax. The AT is a long trail. I met some dogs that sucked, but I din't let it ruin my whole trail experience! I also met osme people I didn't like and some weather I didn't like and went to some towns I didn't like and there were some parts of the trail that sucked, but overall it was the single most incredible experience of my life.

If you let an interaction with a dog or whatever ruin the trail for you, then I feel sorry for you.

Oh, but we should definitely ban those pesky rattlesnakes, right?

Baldy
11-11-2004, 12:52
Well, certainly there is no need for a ban, but dog owners need to assess their dogs and their own ability to control their dogs. If your dog is well trained and friendly, then there should be no problem unless you run into someone who REALLY hates dogs. If your dog isn't well trained or has the tendency to be really friendly to people they meet, they shouldn't be on the trail. Some people who say they were "attacked" by a dog are just being over-dramatic about a super-friendly dog.

However, when I remember going around a bend in the trail just north of Neel's Gap and seeing a dog owner allowing their animal to take a s@#t in the middle of the trail makes me want to forget what I just said.

Blue Jay
11-11-2004, 15:42
Oh, but we should definitely ban those pesky rattlesnakes, right?

Wrong, I'll take rattlesnakes any day. I've seen hundreds of them over the years both on the AT and in the Adirondacks. They are very consistent in their behavior. You leave them alone, they leave you alone. In fact, I have seen fools bother them and all they want to do is get away. Dogs can wag their tails one minute and sink their teeth into you the next. Dog People have absolutely no clue or care that they cause terror in people who have previously been attacked by dogs. Rattlesnakes are a thousand times superior to dogs and dog people.

MOWGLI
11-11-2004, 16:02
Oh, but we should definitely ban those pesky rattlesnakes, right?


"When all the dangerous cliffs are fenced off, all of the trees that might fall on people are cut down, all of the insects that bite are poisoned....and all of the grizzlies are dead because they are occasionally dangerous, the wilderness will not be made safe. Rather the safety will have destroyed the wilderness." - R. Yorke Edwards

grrickar
11-11-2004, 16:27
Well, certainly there is no need for a ban, but dog owners need to assess their dogs and their own ability to control their dogs. If your dog is well trained and friendly, then there should be no problem unless you run into someone who REALLY hates dogs.
Yeah, what he said. No seriously, if bringing a dog on the trail I would be prepared to have some people not be very happy about it. Obviously from the poll most feel like they should not be brought along. Even if your dog if friendly, what if someone whacks it with a trek pole or sprays pepper spray on it because the dog acted in some way that frightened them? Just because the owner knows the dog is friendly doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Pencil Pusher
11-11-2004, 16:47
Well I think just the dog being there is enough to send some people over the brink, even without him barking, snarling, etc. Others don't understand dog behavior, hence the "smile at you one minute, and seek their teeth into you the next". And before some of you have grand delusions of kicking/shooting/pepper spray/trekking pole the dog, realize the owner probably views that dog like a child of their own and will respond accordingly.

smokymtnsteve
11-11-2004, 17:51
Well I think just the dog being there is enough to send some people over the brink, even without him barking, snarling, etc. Others don't understand dog behavior, hence the "smile at you one minute, and seek their teeth into you the next". And before some of you have grand delusions of kicking/shooting/pepper spray/trekking pole the dog, realize the owner probably views that dog like a child of their own and will respond accordingly.

Bring'em on! ;)

Youngblood
11-11-2004, 17:54
Well I think just the dog being there is enough to send some people over the brink, even without him barking, snarling, etc. Others don't understand dog behavior, hence the "smile at you one minute, and seek their teeth into you the next". And before some of you have grand delusions of kicking/shooting/pepper spray/trekking pole the dog, realize the owner probably views that dog like a child of their own and will respond accordingly.

You need to be careful how you put that. It could be taken as a threat, like not only is the dog going to attack you but the owner too. Anyhow, if the situation gets to that point I will take your advice into serious consideration and likewise, respond accordingly. At least WillK's friend only had to shoot the dogs.

Enough of that nonsense, okay?

I have hiked with folks that were afraid of large dogs running loose when the only danger was the dog being too friendly. The fear is real to them and should not be shrugged off as unreasonable. (Some folks have been seriously injured by dog attacks or know someone that has.) If someone is upset by a dog, the owner should do what is necessary to remove/reduce the fear.

The few times I have been seriously threaten by another hikers dog, I believe the owner was always yelling at me to not worry that he/she won't bite you... all the while the dog was closing with an undisputably aggressive attitude. The truth was they couldn't control their dog and didn't really know what the dog was going to do, just as I wasn't sure. I knew to hold my ground and use a soothing voice with the dog but to maintain a defensive position... it takes a lot of nerve guessing how close you can allow the dog before you must take whatever action you can to defend yourself from an assult. If you break and run (like a child probably would) you are almost certainly going to be bitten. Usually these owners offer unbelievable stories that basically try to shift the blame from them... I don't ever recall one of them saying they missed up and shouldn't have brought an untrained/uncontrolled dog, especially unleashed.

Youngblood

Footslogger
11-11-2004, 18:24
On an overnighter ...maybe, but not on a distance hike. Get serious, what dog in its right mind would sign up for 8 - 10 hours a day of walking on an ongoing basis ?? The vast majority of dogs have "bursts of energy" but none of them are ready and willing to go at it for that long. Dogs like to rest and sleep a lot.

It is at the owners convenience that the dogs end up on the AT during a long section or distance hike. The dog may be wagging its tail but that is all about trying to please the master and not about happily walking 12 - 15 miles/day ...day after day.

I love dogs and on my thru last year I saw lots of em ...and got along with most of em too. I just don't think loving an animal is justification enough for dragging its ass along on adventure that is all about the master.

Just my .02

"Slogger
AT 2003

Lilred
11-11-2004, 18:27
One of the experiences I had with a dog on the trail was last November near Dick's Creek Gap. The dog was unleashed and came around the bend. As soon as it saw me, it started growling. The owner, a day hiker, was all apologetic and said the dog had never done that before. This only proves that owners do not know what their dogs are going to do when in a different environment other than their own home. "He must be afraid of your pack" was the explanation I got.

hikerdude
11-11-2004, 18:29
Dogs on the trail a problem? No more than a bringing a 3 year old with you.

Dog poop, you mean people poop with piles of T.P. on top. Yea its all around, everywhere there's a road crossing parking lot, even in the creeks. Thank god for flys and the autumn leaves. And water filters.:mad:

Pencil Pusher
11-11-2004, 19:00
I thought I was being careful. Anyhow, it all revolves around perceptions. I think there are enough reasonable people on both sides of the fence that understand this.

FatMan
11-12-2004, 20:41
I posted the comments below in the other current dog thread but it may be more appropriate for this thread............after all if willk can post his garbage on the topic multiple times, I will take a small liberty and post this twice.

Just like it is wise for us to educate other hikers about etiquette on the trail instead of complaining about their antics.......it is just as wise to educate dog owners about etiquette on the trail instead of complaining about dogs. Lets face it. All of us together on whiteblaze don't have the power to ban dogs from the trail. And I doubt the people with the power (NPS,USFS,States,etc.) will ever entirely do so.

Here is a great article from the ATC website for those who are interested in hiking with dogs:

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/pdfs/fido.pdf

And this link is for all of those that are confused about the rules:

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hik..._info/dogs.html (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hike/hike_info/dogs.html)

I am on record as one who hikes with his dog. As a proponent of dogs on the trail I would agree that it would be quite appropriate to ban dogs from overnighting at shelters. I do believe mixing dogs and shelters is a problem waiting to happen. I could be wrong but I believe most of the resentment to dogs on the trail is really due to dogs in the shelters. The trail is a huge place and there is plenty of room for all kinds....even dogs. But shelters are a very small place and I can agree that many times a single dog makes a crowd.

Happy hiking to all.....even Fido.
BTW.....I am quite sure that any reputable polling firm would throw these results out. The stated question just might be a wee bit biased.

Ridge
11-14-2004, 14:23
....I am quite sure that any reputable polling firm would throw these results out. The stated question just might be a wee bit biased.I just didn't have enough room to put a few more reasons, here are just a few more

Dogs spread Parvo to wildlife, which kills. Main reason GSMNP bans dogs.

Leashed or not a dog will pee on trailside vegetation every few yards, maybe some hikers enjoy pee running down their leg they get when rubbing against it, I don't. When’s the last time you've seen dog owners wiping or washing the vegetation off in order to conform with LNT? Also, try sleeping in a shelter with a dog(s), they will bark all night, tear up stuff, keep tired hikers up all night, etc, etc, etc. Dogs do not belong on any established trail or in any shelter, period! I own a dog and leave him home, others should do the same instead of using the trail as an outdoor toilet for their dogs.

JimSproul
11-14-2004, 15:50
I have a dog who love to hike more than eat! I BUT I leave him at home. I don't subject him to bad conditions, Texas heat, cold weather, rain, etc.....

BUT I have seen more dogs on the trail that were less trouble than the average teenager (I have 3!) If a hiker is over drugged, loud, or otherwise a pain in the butt, I move on. I never saw my dog pee that much, and never where it would get on him let alone another hiker. I HAVE seen circles burned in shelter floors from carless use of alcohol stoves, food all over the place in Bear Country, and more than one pissed on latrine seat.

Even in "thru-hiker season" I have not seen that many dogs. The problem dogs and teenagers should be addressed but I carry a tent so I can vote with my feet.

screwysquirrel
11-21-2004, 01:28
Dogs don't belong on the AT or any hiking trail. There's sort of a regression that takes place with dog and owner when in the wild. A couple years ago, I was hiking to a hotspring when a couple allowed their dog to intimidate me at a trail junction just to prove a point. These jerks were also camping "next" to the hotspring.

I got my revenge by hiking out the next day, opening their car, taking a dump on the drivers seat and pissing on the passenger seat. I wanted to make their experience as nice as mine. I actually have a friend who shot and killed two charging dobermans at a state park. The owners were pissed but had no recourse; he only got a $50 fine for shooting a gun at the park.
Kudos to you and your friend. :clap :banana :banana

gollwoods
12-05-2004, 08:33
i have a dog and have hiked a little on the A T with him. how ever i also take him with me two or three times a week to my local park and run a 4-5 mile trail run. he is sometimes off the leash. So i do know he will not charge anyone or even pay attention other than look up and wag his tail. I would not hesitate to drive a spike into the eyeball of anyone who injured my dog and i don't think anyone can tell me not to take my dog with me

Lone Wolf
12-05-2004, 09:05
Thems some tough words.

neo
12-05-2004, 10:45
how many people like having some body,s wet dog flop down on your sleeping bag in a trail shelter,our shaking smelly rain water and mud all over you,well i dont,:bse i have had this happen,the owner got pissed when i said get your dog of my bag,:bse

Lilred
12-05-2004, 13:06
how many people like having some body,s wet dog flop down on your sleeping bag in a trail shelter,our shaking smelly rain water and mud all over you,well i dont,:bse i have had this happen,the owner got pissed when i said get your dog of my bag,:bse

From reading the last two posts, neo's and gollwoods, it's plain here that it is all about the owner. If I took a dog on a hike with me and he was all wet and muddy, I would never even consider letting the dog up in the shelter. I doubt gollwood would ever have to use that spike.

saimyoji
12-05-2004, 21:55
EDITED QUOTE:


how many people like having some wet HIKER flop down on your sleeping bag in a trail shelter,our shaking smelly rain water and mud all over you,well i dont,:bse i have had this happen,the HIKER got pissed when i said get your A** off my bag,:bse
Anyone else have this kind of thing happen to them? Not a dog, a HIKER acting like a jerk. Sure we have. Are we ready to eye spike every wet hiker we meet? Are we ready to "put down" every smelly hiker that offends us? Maybe we should keep in mind that PEOPLE do more damage to the trail, offend more people in shelters, behave like complete D**ks more often than dogs do. Perhaps we should shift our focus off the four legged animal and onto the two legged ones!

I'm still against dogs accosting me on the trail. Keep 'em leashed? Hmmm....

funkyfreddy
12-06-2004, 01:08
If you're going to ban dogs than you should ban thruhikers as well. After all, dogs are generally cleaner,smell better,and are quieter as well. :D

minnesotasmith
12-06-2004, 04:25
ALL of the following was explicitly understood by all users on the AT to be the eternal always-applicable rules to be followed to have dogs on the AT:

1) Dogs are on leashes no longer than 6' (or indoors/inside a vehicle/behind an escape-proof fence) 100.00000% of the time they are within a mile of the AT.

2) Dogs don't come within 50' of a shelter (let alone inside it), ever, even if no one else is around, and there's a massive downpour or once-in-a-century blizzard underway. If the Trail comes near a shelter, hikers with dogs should bushwack off the Trail around the shelter to maintain the 50' minimum distance.

3) Dogs get yanked off at least 10' off the Trail the second they start to urinate or defecate.

4) Unleashed loose dogs have no protection (legal or otherwise) against being bear-sprayed, shot, teargassed, pepper-sprayed, kicked by heavy boots, hit by large rocks thrown hard, hiking staves broken over their heads, targeted by WD-40 cans with contents spraying out on fire, etc., on sight, even before the dog is specifically aggressive toward the hiker that felt he needed to carry out such an act of active self-defense. After all, the non-dog-accompanied hiker may well not have time to defend himself against the dog after it begins to attack him, and is entitled to remove without delay such a wrongful potential threat to his safety that is neither a human being nor wildlife. The dog's owner should be apologetic toward the hiker that did such things, and ideally should immediately compensate with money the other hiker for the bear/pepper spray, ammunition, etc., that other hiker judged that he had to use up to remove a threat that only the dog owner's neglect caused to be present on the Trail in the first place.

5) Dogs aren't allowed to linger in streams crossing the AT, and aren't allowed to come within 20' of springs used as water sources. Ideally, dogs will be carried over streams.

6) Dogs that start to bark during hours of darkness without a bear in sight are immediately clubbed by their owners so that they stop barking immediately. If the owner does not do so within a few seconds, any other hiker camping nearby is free to take up the slack and do the same to the dog. The dog owner will then humbly apologize for the dog barking, pick up camp, and move with his ill-trained mutt at least 1/2 mile away.

7) When a hiker with a dog (leashed, of course) encounters other hikers, the dog owner will in every case immediately step off the Trail, pulling the dog after him so that the dog is at least 5' off the Trail prior to the other hiker getting to that point on the Trail. The dog owner will stay off the Trail until the other hiker is past.

8) Anywhere on or near the AT a hiker is eating and/or preparing food, or has set up any kind of camp, anyone else with a dog will observe at least a 50' exclusion zone from that hiker and his camp, as applicable.

9) Any hiker who sees another hiker's dog remaining anywhere near him (within sight, or 100 yards, whichever is longer) for longer than it takes that hiker with a dog to pass on by has the right to demand that dog be muzzled for the duration of that proximity.

If those rules are understood to be the minimum (ideally being posted on signs near all Trail entrance points), I could see dogs on the Trail. Otherwise, no.

The guiding principle I used in forumulating this list (policies for dogs on the AT) is similiar to the one I have for how IMO smoking tobacco should be regulated; e.g., nonsmokers should never have any cost or inconvenience of any kind inflicted upon them by some other people voluntarily choosing to behave differently from them in this regard, a behavior that is completely nonessential to hiking the AT. (Don't bother mentioning the red herring of guide dogs; I haven't seen one on the AT yet, and probably won't ever, they are so rare there, I understand.)

minnesotasmith
12-06-2004, 06:18
"I would not hesitate to drive a spike into the eyeball of anyone who injured my dog and i don't think anyone can tell me not to take my dog with me"

Thank you for making it clear why any hiker defending himself against a loose dog should always keep some bear spray (or whatever) in reserve for the dog's owner, who is likely to 180o misunderstand the ethics of hiker/loose dogs encounters.

NICKTHEGREEK
12-06-2004, 07:21
Yes to the trail but on leash at all times. No to the shelters. Rights to the AT are not specific to thru hikers only.

minnesotasmith
12-06-2004, 07:52
"Rights to the AT are not specific to thru hikers only."

Exactly. Rights to the AT devolve to American citizens and those aliens we decide to allow to visit it, with wildlife coming second, and domestic animals an extremely distant third (if at all), subordinate to concerns of the first two.

Rain Man
12-06-2004, 12:05
... (Don't bother mentioning the red herring of guide dogs; I haven't seen one on the AT yet, and probably won't ever, they are so rare there, I understand.)

I'll bother. Drove a hiker with massive AT miles to Katahdyn this September, with his therapy dog. They both were allowed into Baxter with no problems (per the law). We were asked by all the rangers we saw, who immediately welcomed the dog once they were told and saw the official "therapy dog" yellow tag.

Last year the hiker and the dog both climbed all the way up Katahdyn. This year, they only went to the tree line, so they could dispense trail magic.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I have actually seen and been with an AT hiker with a therapy dog. And yes, this is a red herring issue when compared to the issue of problem dogs on the AT.
:sun
Rain Man

.

Ridge
12-07-2004, 07:05
The percentage of thru hikers, with dogs, who complete the AT with the same dog is probably in the 1% or lower range. I personally think that those who take a dog(s) on the trail are basically just walking their dog and messing up the trail and shelters for others who take hiking more seriously. They should be banned just as horses and bikes. Everyone I have ever known who started with a dog ended up having fido picked up by a family member somewhere along the trail. Bill Erwin, blind hiker, did complete the hike with his dog, and if all dogs where trained, leashed and disciplined like this dog then I would be a little more receptive to dogs on the AT, but still should not to be allowed in shelters or hostels.

UCONNMike
12-07-2004, 14:44
They keep the mice and critters away from the shelters, i vote that dogs on the trail are an upgrade. plus when you are out there, if you have a dog at home that you miss, seeing another dog will make you feel better

Ramble~On
12-07-2004, 21:16
UCONN...I'm not sure how I could "feel better" by reaching a shelter at the end of a long day and being greeted by a growling, barking dog.

minnesotasmith
12-08-2004, 09:27
"They keep the mice and critters away from the shelters."

Uh, if dogs are coming close enough to shelters to have a chance of driving away mice and racoons, they are close enough to shake themselves off while wet onto other hikers, stick their noses into other hiker's cooking (that is being done outside the shelter), make other hikers feel threatened, etc. Dogs would have to go INSIDE shelters to do much against the shelter mice, and that is absolutely out IMO; I wouldn't want a stranger's wet muddy dog stepping on my sleeping gear (or even just my pack) in a shelter, while chasing after mice inside a shelter that probably will just run into crevices in the walls where the dog cannot fit to pursue them.

Too, I would be skeptical that bears (not to mention porcupines and skunks) would be all that frightened of dogs. Trading the moderate chance of any varmint warding by a hiker's dog for the highly likely chance of irritation from the dog's behavior and presence strikes me as a poor trade, one that I do not wish to make while hiking.

hikerdude
12-08-2004, 10:39
A dog is only as good as its feet. Sides like your mother gets sometimes, people won't let a dog be a dog sometimes to.
Lets look at in a opinionated way. First deep down in the south the Great Smokies National Park won't even let you have a dog. G.S.M.Park even pay ridge running rangers that hike the trail to give you fines yet,right? Crazy if I think about it.
No lie but wherever I go better take a good lawyer and a Samraritan.

minnesotasmith
12-08-2004, 14:01
That since through-hikers with dogs have considerably lower through-hike completion rates (at least with that dog), serious thrus will generally not bring a dog along.

Hikerdude, I did not understand your allusion to the Samaritan. Please elaborate.

swamp dawg
12-10-2004, 23:02
I always smile when I see one with a pack so even though I don't hike with a dog. Life is good on the trail, dog or not.

Tractor
12-15-2004, 22:42
The pole only has two choices. Neither seems right for me. I have had some very bad vibes, though, walking around huge dog piles in the middle of the trail and later finding the source of these piles in a feeding frenzy in the middle of a shelter (slop scattered along about two spots or so), giant feed bucket, giant water bucket, with the owner smiling with glee as we decide to press on. Later, several miles on, there were several of us who eventually collected after passing on the dog pen. I would vote to ban this owner from the trail. That's a lame way to use a dog....I'd say most of my encounters with hikers w/dogs have not been a problem. On the other hand, many of my encounters with day trippers w/dogs have been problematic or at least potentially so, for the dog(s), other dog(s), the owner and/or others. The other day, on Blood Mountain, I suspect several litters (very mixed breeds) were conceived within two hours of heavy traffic and heavy, well, u get the picture. "Bad dog" "bad doggie" was an earworm that hung in there for a couple of hours. It was like a very bad B movie.

Pencil Pusher
12-16-2004, 00:24
I've had different experiences with dogs both on and off the trail. I'd be cool with a dog in a shelter.

saimyoji
12-16-2004, 00:46
I've posted my experiences with dogs on the trail here before (different thread) but have recently had another. I was greeted on the trail by a mutt (breed of dubious origin) who had no respect for my 'hiker-ness.' It tried to 'play friendly' with me, but in the process covered me with mud, muck, nasty smelly crap and who knows what else. Thank you very much but keep your four legged friend away from me.

Bottom line: Dogs on the trail are hiking. They should be considered hikers. They should be held to the same standards and expectations as two legged hikers. They shouldn't be trying to dry hump every warm body in site.

Mountain Dew
12-16-2004, 01:08
In 2003 a dog named Frodo was with a married couple ( Balou and Skidmark) who were doing a very long section hike. Their dog was often allowed to sit and stare at you from close range as you cooked without the owners paying much attention. Once in a national park he got within inches of a hiker named Big Birds pot. This reminded me of parents who never seem to know where their kids are at stores. Frodo would also get in the habit of barking at peak hours of sleep. i.e. 11 pm ...5 am when he heard a hiker get up to pee. I even saw this dog allowed and encouraged to play/drink in a water source near to the logical spot where hikers would be filtering.
---------------------------------------
At Trail Days 2004 a German Shepard named Raven walked freely all over the camp ground despite police warning to hikers that their dogs should be leashed at all times. In the pouring rain I see this dog walk up to my tent and hike his leg up...yup he did his business right on the door of my tent. As I stuck my head outside to get a look at him I saw his pissing on somebody's cooler. Ashame it was raining and I was in utter shock at what had happened. A good jab of a leki pole up his ass and a costly trip to the vet would have served both dog and owner a good lesson.
------------------------
Some dogs do belong on the trail though. The ones with well "trained owners" should be allowed to hike on the trail, but only on a leash in the areas where one is required.

saimyoji
12-16-2004, 01:14
Dogs and Owners must be trained. If your dog is not trained for life on the trail, neither are YOU! If you plan to bring a dog, and you are not trained for life on the trail WITH A DOG...STAY HOME......please

Pencil Pusher
12-16-2004, 02:16
Just the same, you whiners need to be the 'alpha dog' when around these pooches. Christ on high, why let a dog piss on your tent or get too close to your food or cooking pot? Don't be shy about giving commands to a strange dog. Just don't be willy nilly about it. Seems you should add non-dog owners to that list of those needing training;)

minnesotasmith
12-16-2004, 02:35
take a squirt on MY tent, or stick its nose in MY pot of food, it would get a hiking stick across the face, or a fist-sized rock chunked at it (aimed to hit) faster than you can say "Tie your f*****g dog up NOW!!", even if the owner was 10' away.

Pencil Pusher
12-16-2004, 02:45
Everyone's a tough guy on the internet, eh? No MS, I suspect your actual response to any such dog's actions would be more in line with 'acceptable' behavior. Then you'll come on here and gripe about how lucky that dog was and how you exercised such Herculean restraint...:rolleyes:

minnesotasmith
12-16-2004, 03:03
I've stood between a circling bobcat and a female companion, unarmed with nothing more than a knife. I've (unarmed) faced down a man (who'd been convicted of manslaughter & served time for it) holding a loaded shotgun on me who'd loved to have used it on me. I had a bear (black, but still bigger than me) stalk me for about 50 yards in Alabama about 20 years ago, and had the self-control not to start running. I've been cornered in an alley by an Oriental gang while in the Far East with one companion, and we talked our way out of it. I've had a drug dealer gang leader hold a pistol on me when I walked into his drug deal by chance. I've come close to falling down crumbling steep slopes hundreds of feet high while hiking out West, and never panicked nor even called anything out. I never lost my s**t in any of those situations. Don't say I lack courage or presence of mind in a genuine crisis IRL without knowing the first thing about my history.

Pencil Pusher
12-16-2004, 04:46
Yes MS, without a doubt, you truly are a tough guy. Or maybe you're a teenage girl giggling to herself as she makes that stuff up. Who knows, this is the internet...;)

Dainon
12-16-2004, 08:43
When my daughter was 8 years old, I took her to a New Kids on the Block concert and lived to tell about it.

SGT Rock
12-16-2004, 09:09
I've met MD, if he is a teenage girl, he is one ugly teenage girl.

MOWGLI
12-16-2004, 09:12
I've stood between a circling bobcat and a female companion, unarmed with nothing more than a knife....

Oh, you've got me on the edge of my seat! And what happened next? Did you wake up? :D

No really, please tell us more. Where exactly did this happen? Did you report it to the local DNR? Who was the woman? I'd love to hear her account of your heroism.

Blue Jay
12-16-2004, 09:15
I've stood between a circling bobcat and a female companion, unarmed with nothing more than a knife. I've (unarmed) faced down a man (who'd been convicted of manslaughter & served time for it) holding a loaded shotgun on me who'd loved to have used it on me. I had a bear (black, but still bigger than me) stalk me for about 50 yards in Alabama about 20 years ago, and had the self-control not to start running. I've been cornered in an alley by an Oriental gang while in the Far East with one companion, and we talked our way out of it. I've had a drug dealer gang leader hold a pistol on me when I walked into his drug deal by chance. I've come close to falling down crumbling steep slopes hundreds of feet high while hiking out West, and never panicked nor even called anything out. I never lost my s**t in any of those situations. Don't say I lack courage or presence of mind in a genuine crisis IRL without knowing the first thing about my history.

He also has a blue ox.

Youngblood
12-16-2004, 09:30
I've met MD, if he is a teenage girl, he is one ugly teenage girl.
Opps, MS... MD! But like MD pointed out the D and the S key are so close. :)

Youngblood
12-16-2004, 10:37
... I never lost my s**t in any of those situations. Don't say I lack courage or presence of mind in a genuine crisis IRL without knowing the first thing about my history.

MS,

Your ideas and assessments are sometimes different than mine. I recall one about your black bear encounter on the AT in Georgia where you handled it completely wrong by bushwacking after the bear you sighted turned and ran away from you when it noticed you. You were in no danger but thought you were (you thought the bear ran away to find a better spot to ambush you further up the trail) and then acted in an unwise way that actually placed you in some danger. I'm refering to this incident:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=61725&highlight=bear+bushwack#post61725

So, I would question your presence of mind, especially how you responded after it was pointed to you that your actions were not appropriate for the black bears in Georgia.

Youngblood

saimyoji
12-16-2004, 18:22
thou dost protest too much.

I would like to believe MS has had all these experiences and has reacted exactly how he says. I've had many of the same experiences, especially the Asian gang thing (I grew up in Japan and Thailand).

But you use those things as examples of keeping your cool. I find it hard to believe such a courageous and level headed guy would freak out at dog in a shelter.

minnesotasmith
12-16-2004, 23:09
As far as my bear encounter just west of Hawk Mountain Shelter goes, I deliberately did what seemed right at the time. I was not able to see the bear flee to a safe distance, so behaved in what seemed to me a cautious manner. I did not turn around and hike miles in darkness (I did have two working flashlights with me), nor did I just blithely continue up the Trail in the direction I was going. Now, people such as yourself who have enough experience to be entitled to an opinion about my choice on how to react certainly are worth listening to on that. I admit to a nonzero risk to my bushwacking on a slope near dusk. However, I have strong legs, had a pack under 40 pounds, a stout walking stick, was not near exhaustion, and knew from years of living in the South to be careful of snakes behind/under objects. I still think I handled it reasonably, if perhaps not ideally. YMMV.

Youngblood
12-17-2004, 08:23
... I admit to a nonzero risk to my bushwacking on a slope near dusk. ...

That is what I have a problem with. I understand being fearful of black bears, when I first started hiking I would think every dark obect at dusk was a potential bear waiting to ambush me. Now, I realize that black bears in Georgia are very timid on the trail and you are lucky to even get a glimpse of them as they run away to distance themselves from you. I also realize, that in spite of your statement to the contrary, that "bushwacking on a slope near dusk" has a lot more risk than walking on a well maintained path such as the AT in Georgia... not just a little more risk, a whole lot more risk. Snakes, logs, loose rocks, covered holes, briars, poison oak, etc, etc are hazards to a much greater degree when you bushwack, ESPECIALLY in the lower visibility conditions at dusk and ESPECIALLY on a slope. When this was pointed out to you by myself, and possibly others, you 'poo pawed it' and insisted that you knew best. Well, you are obviously inexperienced at hiking on the AT and it was assumed you wanted to share experiences and also learn. But, in my opinion, you are not trying to learn as much as impress and teach others... quite often the wrong way to handle things and my fear is someone my take your opinions as good advice when they are not and get themselves in trouble.

And, while I'm at it, from reading some of your other posts it is apparent to me that while we may live in the same neighborhood, that we live in different worlds... and for that I am thankful.

Youngblood

Youngblood
12-17-2004, 09:55
...At Trail Days 2004 a German Shepard named Raven walked freely all over the camp ground despite police warning to hikers that their dogs should be leashed at all times. In the pouring rain I see this dog walk up to my tent and hike his leg up...yup he did his business right on the door of my tent. As I stuck my head outside to get a look at him I saw his pissing on somebody's cooler. Ashame it was raining and I was in utter shock at what had happened. A good jab of a leki pole up his ass and a costly trip to the vet would have served both dog and owner a good lesson.
...
MD,

Just a thought, you may have had Raven figured all wrong. Maybe he liked you and was marking your tent to protect you from stray dogs, lone wolves and such.

Youngblood

Lone Wolf
12-17-2004, 09:59
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Tim Rich
12-17-2004, 10:14
I've stood between a circling bobcat and a female companion, unarmed with nothing more than a knife.

I'd never get between a bobcat and its female companion...

MOWGLI
12-17-2004, 10:24
I'd never get between a bobcat and its female companion...

That's the problem with you section hikers. You haven't spent enought time alone in the woods. :D

Alligator
12-17-2004, 10:29
I've stood between a circling bobcat and a female companion, unarmed with nothing more than a knife. I've (unarmed) faced down a man (who'd been convicted of manslaughter & served time for it) holding a loaded shotgun on me who'd loved to have used it on me. I had a bear (black, but still bigger than me) stalk me for about 50 yards in Alabama about 20 years ago, and had the self-control not to start running. I've been cornered in an alley by an Oriental gang while in the Far East with one companion, and we talked our way out of it. I've had a drug dealer gang leader hold a pistol on me when I walked into his drug deal by chance. I've come close to falling down crumbling steep slopes hundreds of feet high while hiking out West, and never panicked nor even called anything out. I never lost my s**t in any of those situations. Don't say I lack courage or presence of mind in a genuine crisis IRL without knowing the first thing about my history.
Have you resolutely kept your lips sealed as the nurses forcefully attempted to administer your medication?

Rain Man
12-17-2004, 11:08
... I admit to a nonzero risk to my bushwacking on a slope near dusk....

What the heck is a nonzero risk?
:-?
.

Tim Rich
12-17-2004, 11:51
That's the problem with you section hikers. You haven't spent enought time alone in the woods. :D

Cue Mr. Nugent...

Cat Scratch Fever :dance

Glee
12-17-2004, 12:29
Quote:
Originally Posted by minnesotasmith
... I admit to a nonzero risk to my bushwacking on a slope near dusk....



What the heck is a nonzero risk?

:-?
.
An oxymoron, minus - the oxy = Moron = Type of person who would try "bushwacking on a slope near dusk"



Moron - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years......

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

TuggyTrout
12-18-2004, 09:00
This thread sure went to the dogs!

wacocelt
12-18-2004, 13:47
unarmed with nothing more than a knife.

That's armed you twit.

I've had some very good and very bad experiences with dogs on the trail and the same with townsfolk and hikers. I even have the dubious honor of becoming one of the most infamous hikers in AT history as far as I know, so I know of what I speak. No matter how many good or bad experiences you have with whatever person, critter or inanimate object, there will always be a shining example of opposite behavior or interaction from the same stereotype or species, if not from the same person or animal.

I'de like you folks to consider for a moment that blanket accusations, whether directed at people or pets, are one of the purest forms of ignorance and bigotry you will ever have the misfortune of experiencing.

Yes there are some dogs that shouldn't be at shelters, campsites, hostels or restaurants because they lack the obedience training that is key to sucessful interaction with our human society, but the majority of those dogs while leashed on the trail would be fine. I do agree that some, though very few dogs shouldn't be taken ito public, muchless onto the AT.

To deny a person the freedom of enjoying our natural environment with thier best friend just because some people cringe at the mere mention of a dog, muchless the sight of one would be a sad endeavor indeed.

Perhaps the ATC could manage to set up a Ridge Runner Hotline to alert Forestry Service officials if not Law Enforcement of threatening behavior by pets on the trail, provide them with the hikers trailname and a description of both hiker and pet in question for further action. It's perfectly acceptable to report a person for threatening or attacking someone, myself as a perfect example, so why do people hesitate to do the same when someones pet does the same? If a fellow hikers animal makes you feel legitamately threatened or worse actually bites you, call the police and have them arrested, it's your right and also your responsibility to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else.

We, as humans, aren't as superior to other living species as some folks like to try and force the rest of us to believe, some muchless so.

Bloodroot
12-18-2004, 14:35
I have no problem with dogs being on the trail. Plain and simple, it all falls back on the owner's measure of responsibility.

I agree that:

1. The dog should stay away from the shelters.
2. The owner takes responsibility for cleaning up the dogs waste the same as LNT applies to the hiker.
3. The owner respects those who don't care for having any association with dogs.
4. Leash for sure and tied-up while stationary.

Basically, saimyogi, " Dogs and Owners must be trained"

Bloodroot
12-18-2004, 14:46
(accidentally pushed the post button)

But I think before a thru hiker decides to bring his canine along, he should consider a very good point that was brought up......

Footslogger, "I just don't think loving an animal is justification enough for dragging its ass along on adventure that is all about the master"

snarbles
12-18-2004, 14:51
My girlfriend and I are working on training a good "trail dog". It's a Blue Heeler (Austrailian Cattle Dog) and is a very robust breed and very intelligent.

Not sure if we would take the dog on a thru-hike or not, but it may be a possiblity if the dog does very well.

She always says, "Dog training is more about training the human than the dog."

Rancid
12-19-2004, 23:24
I don't particularly care for dogs, any dogs, but I have had several good experiences on trails concerning dogs and a few very bad experiences that really irritated me. The bad ones seem to out-weight the good dog experiences and that's ashamed. It aways seems to me that the dog owners are at fault, maybe they should be banned from the trail. I'd like to bring my cat along on a hike, but he just don't obey my commands, he's stubborn on the leash and I won't carry him since he weighs 18 lbs.!!
I voted YES, because many people really enjoy thier mutts as much as I enjoy my cats, they just have to think ahead and be considerate.

BooBoo
02-05-2005, 02:02
Hey Mtn. Dew, SkidMark and Balou did NOT have a dog with them. There was a couple that hiked near them that had a Shepherd but I don't reacall their trailnames.

superman
02-06-2005, 22:15
Yup:bse yes:clapyea :jumpsi :banana ok;)

Tweety
05-14-2005, 10:05
When I thru hiked in 2002 I hiked with a young woman and her dog for about 30 miles. The dog was great, well behaved and his owner saw to it that he was in his and her own space in the shelters. In PA after everyone was asleep a hiker came in to a shelter with her large dog. We were awakened by rattling chains, tags, filling the food bowl with kibbles, lapping water and licking himself. This continued for a good while. Very inconsiderate! The hiker should have camped rather than making everyone else suffer. The other complaint I have with dogs and owners is that when someone is hiking with their dog and a hiker approaches sometimes Fido gets defensive. Please keep him/her on a short leash as the hiker passes. Fido is doing what he should by defending his master, but please don't tell hikers "he/she won't bite"....there are teeth, right? Fido doesn't know me and I don't know Fido...please be considerate until I pass.

TOW
05-14-2005, 15:04
Dogs don't belong on the AT or any hiking trail. There's sort of a regression that takes place with dog and owner when in the wild. A couple years ago, I was hiking to a hotspring when a couple allowed their dog to intimidate me at a trail junction just to prove a point. These jerks were also camping "next" to the hotspring.

I got my revenge by hiking out the next day, opening their car, taking a dump on the drivers seat and pissing on the passenger seat. I wanted to make their experience as nice as mine. I actually have a friend who shot and killed two charging dobermans at a state park. The owners were pissed but had no recourse; he only got a $50 fine for shooting a gun at the park.
horsecrap!

TOW
05-14-2005, 15:09
I'm gonna bring my pet Anaconda with me next time I hike out there. Any objections?
wanderer

Nearly Normal
05-14-2005, 16:15
As far as my bear encounter just west of Hawk Mountain Shelter goes, I deliberately did what seemed right at the time. I was not able to see the bear flee to a safe distance, so behaved in what seemed to me a cautious manner. I did not turn around and hike miles in darkness (I did have two working flashlights with me), nor did I just blithely continue up the Trail in the direction I was going. Now, people such as yourself who have enough experience to be entitled to an opinion about my choice on how to react certainly are worth listening to on that. I admit to a nonzero risk to my bushwacking on a slope near dusk. However, I have strong legs, had a pack under 40 pounds, a stout walking stick, was not near exhaustion, and knew from years of living in the South to be careful of snakes behind/under objects. I still think I handled it reasonably, if perhaps not ideally. YMMV.
June of 2004 I lunched at Hawk Mountain Shelter. Afterwards heading north I shortly started a rocky down where ahead and out of view a large crashing stopped me in my tracks.
After a few more feet found a large fresh pile of flora debris on the trail. To the right or uphill a large slick where something had just sled ending at the pile. I've always thought it was a fleeing bear and a large one too.
pete

RU98A
05-14-2005, 17:21
Leave the barking, whining, stinking, pissing, crapping dogs at home. Just my own opinion.:)

saimyoji
05-14-2005, 19:29
Always nice to see the dog threads come back to life... And the perpetually entertaining anecdote from stevehiker :datz

Ridge
05-15-2005, 13:01
I just saw this post, didn't know my husband had started this poll/thread. Dogs, horses, bikes on any hiking trail really pushes his button. He has seen several great hiking trails turned into a combo hiking / bike trail. After a year or two the trails have water holes all over from the biking. hikerwife

Valmet
05-15-2005, 13:32
People that own dogs will take them period. For some reason they believe that since they love their dogs everyone else will. I treat every dog I meet on the trail like they are a wild, don't know them, don't trust them. Have hit some on the head with my stick when they showed teeth and got to close. Would not hesitate to kill one if I thought necessary. So dog owners keep them on a leash and if not, well what ever happens to them is YOUR fault.

orangebug
05-15-2005, 13:56
No, not all owners will take their dogs.

What a shame that this issue appears to encourage violence toward other hikers and their possessions. This thread has engendered the opinion of a few immature dudes, demonstrating that thoughtless dog owners aren't alone in possessing room temperature IQs.

generoll
05-15-2005, 17:53
i leave my dog at home due to inconsiderate hikers crapping wherever they please and my dogs charming habit of rolling in anything that stinks.

that said, the dogs i have met on the trail have generally been at least as well behaved if not better then the hikers in general.

DavidNH
05-15-2005, 17:59
I am sure some of you love dogs and this post will probably lose me some possible friends but so be it.

No dogs on the AT please. Not in parks...not on any wilderness area.

I really hate encountering dogs when hiking. They often run up and down trails with no regard for the hikers they bump into. Many times they bark incessently distrubing the peace we are out therefore. You would not bring out an unrulely toddler ..so why some pet that does not belong?? To me barking dog in the wilderness is just like a screaming baby in church!! And yes the correlation is real.. for me at least..as wilderness to me is as sacred as a church!

Encountering unfriendly dogs on trails for me ranks right up there with the guy who just has to bring a radio or call his buddy on his cell phone from the summit.

I have already had one day hike up Mt Moosilaukee runined by dogs. I sure hope I don't have to cross off too many mountains off my list due to the presence of unruly dogs and thoughtless dog owners.http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif

Nuff said!

MOWGLI
05-15-2005, 18:37
Always nice to see the dog threads come back to life... And the perpetually entertaining anecdote from stevehiker :datz

No, that was Willk, er - I mean Graham Weenie, er - I mean Doo Doo Dawg, er - I mean Bear Scared, er - I mean Horse With No Name, er - I mean Ugh, er - I mean Pothead, er - I mean .... it was a Registered Troll (aka All of the Above). :D

saimyoji
05-15-2005, 21:09
I stand corrected.

Teatime
05-15-2005, 23:07
If all dogs encountered on the AT had been to obedience school and were on a leash, I may not have so much of a problem with it. However, as already stated, they run up and down the trail, through the woods, in streams and they scare the wildlife. Is it the dog's fault if they haven't been to obedience school and their owner doesn't keep them on a leash? Nope, it's the owners fault. So, please, if you do take fido on the AT, please ensure he is leashed and well behaved.

neo
05-16-2005, 09:57
Dogs don't belong on the AT or any hiking trail. There's sort of a regression that takes place with dog and owner when in the wild. A couple years ago, I was hiking to a hotspring when a couple allowed their dog to intimidate me at a trail junction just to prove a point. These jerks were also camping "next" to the hotspring.

I got my revenge by hiking out the next day, opening their car, taking a dump on the drivers seat and pissing on the passenger seat. I wanted to make their experience as nice as mine. I actually have a friend who shot and killed two charging dobermans at a state park. The owners were pissed but had no recourse; he only got a $50 fine for shooting a gun at the park.dogs can be a problem,but you are f_ _king sick,you are lower than a dog
no one in their right mind would take a piss or a crap in someones car,:cool: neo

orangebug
05-16-2005, 14:24
Neo, you've been trolled. That was a very old post and was a repeat of something identical he wrote a longer while back.

Don't feed the troll.

"ME & U"
05-16-2005, 15:39
WOW! Sometimes you guys crack me up. Many thanks to the dudes who bring me WB. I just had a crappy day at work and this stuff is a godsend!

I choose not to vote and and conduct myself in the same manner. I just walk away and find a better spot to be. Do what you will in reference to your dogs and maybe I'll see you on up the trail but I doubt it... chances are, Me & U simply made ourselves scarce from the moment and were better for it.
I like dogs. I was attacked by a doberman as a child. I too have had kagogi. I don't think all this really matters. What does matter though is that we should all just try to get along, dogs or no dogs.
Sometimes I wonder if more of us should just take a hike! Move away from the keyboard... I also wonder what would happen if some of you guys were put in the same room together with one keyboard... Would some of you hike together?
I would probably just walk away.:sun

Ridge
05-17-2005, 00:15
The AT is for hikers, dogs are not hikers. Shelters are for hikers, dogs are not hikers.

Slimer
05-17-2005, 01:38
The AT is for alot of different people with different views.

Moxie00
05-17-2005, 09:50
Dog,s that behave themselves are a joy. Amtrack, Superman, Pooh Bear, and other had well behaved dogs when I thru hiked. Waterproof and Otto had untrained and unmanageable dogs the barked at hikers, bummed food, messed up shelters and were hated and unwelcome. Both these hikers loved their dogs and did their best but the dogs just wern't trainable and both hikers ended up leaving the trail rather than sending those unmanageable dogs home. It depends on the dog and the hiker, if you are out there and you see your dog doesn't fit in send it home, a trained dog os no problem and can be a joy to everyone. Heck I've seen hikers that mess up shelters, shake water over other hikers and beg food so the dogs are only doing what other trail creatures do.

Stray Cat
05-17-2005, 10:10
:bse Regardless of your (or my) stand or feelings on dogs on the AT, let's be realistic. The only entities that can "allow" or disallow dogs on the AT are the state parks, national forests and private land owners. The ATC would have no real authority to levy such restrictions so your poll is moot. Sorry... Having said that, it is usually the owners lack of consideration for others that is the problem and not the dog.

Stray Kat

Heather
08-29-2005, 16:39
Yes, they should be allowed. No, people shouldnt bring them unless they are truly AT ready. At the beginning of my hike I was ambivalent but after a few days of hiking I saw many dogs and all of them were in some kind of pain. An example:An owner and his dog, the dog looked nice and healthy, short hair, at the spot where his legs met his body it was rubbed red and raw in all four spots. It looked painful. We put some antibiotic w/painkiller on the wounds. So after the owner got through telling us how much he loved his dog they hiked on to the next shelter I guess which was approx. 7.1. miles. I thought it might have been more humane to hike back to civilization and take care of the dog by getting it off the trail.

A couple days later a dog ate some of my bread I was using to make my lunch. The owner apologized. At the next road crossing I saw the owner and the dog getting into a car while I was talking to a fellow hiker. I told her the dog ate my bread and she said, "that dog ate my candy bar two days ago. it was amusing in an annoying sort of way.

Heather

DavidNH
08-29-2005, 16:50
I couldn't register my pref in poll so I will do so in post. No dogs on AT please. Dogs fine in neighborhoods but they sure as hell don't belong in the woods and with hikers. The damn things bark and destroy the peace and, unless the owner is one of the rare ones who actually cares, they run all over the place chasing away the little wildlife that there may be and harming vegetation.

I hate seeing dogs on the trail and will applogize to know one for saying this!!

NO DOGS.

nhhiker

pathfindervt
08-29-2005, 18:20
I am currently training my lab to hike with me (he is great company, and has not asked me "are you sure we are on the right trail?" like my girlfriend does a dozen or so times before we reach our destination). The training consist of he stays within sight and no more then tem yards ahead of me, when he or I are aware of another hiker (whether in front of or behind us) he comes to me and he sits. I will usually move to the edge of the trail to let the other hiker(s) by. He will sit calmly by my side until the other hiker makes the first move and asks to pet him or tell him how beautiful he is (he is such a ham and just loves the attention), then its the full lab body wag and kisses. If the hiker just walks by thats okay with him too, he just puts his nose up, kindy snotty like and says under his breath that that person just dosen't know what real beauty is (really he is just such a ham).

I hiked for a couple of years with my shepard and he was trained the same.

Dogs are great companions, and should be allowed with their owners as long as they behave. Perhaps banning the owners of bad dogs would be better.

pathfindervt

SalParadise
08-29-2005, 18:37
One hiker this year told me his dog was friendly, and when I got near it it about bit my hand off.

In addition, extremely few people use a leash with their dogs on the trail so the dogs are then able to approach me or others with no possible restraint should they happen to have some sort of behavioural problem. They almost all run up to every hiker on the trail, and how am I to know if this dog running at me is friendly or unfriendly?

I walked up to an unrestrained dog while night hiking this year, and like most dogs, was protecting its territory and ready to fight the strange creature (me) approaching that it couldn't identify in the dark. It wasn't a pleasant experience.

The Trail is so popular now it is no different than a city sidewalk, and if dogs have to be kept on a leash on sidewalks, they better all be on a leash on the trail or the owners should be fined. I'm obviously not a fan of dogs on the Trail at all.

neo
08-29-2005, 19:11
dogs are a pain in the ass period,hell no,dogs are a real problem:cool: neo

neo
08-29-2005, 19:15
I couldn't register my pref in poll so I will do so in post. No dogs on AT please. Dogs fine in neighborhoods but they sure as hell don't belong in the woods and with hikers. The damn things bark and destroy the peace and, unless the owner is one of the rare ones who actually cares, they run all over the place chasing away the little wildlife that there may be and harming vegetation.

I hate seeing dogs on the trail and will applogize to know one for saying this!!

NO DOGS.

nhhiker
way to go dude,i am with ya,i had a wet dog flop down on my sleeping bag
once,i kicked the dog and the owner was fixing to give some crap,but he changed his mine when he knew he was next,i hate went smelly dogs:cool: neo

neo
08-29-2005, 19:17
Yes, they should be allowed. No, people shouldnt bring them unless they are truly AT ready. At the beginning of my hike I was ambivalent but after a few days of hiking I saw many dogs and all of them were in some kind of pain. An example:An owner and his dog, the dog looked nice and healthy, short hair, at the spot where his legs met his body it was rubbed red and raw in all four spots. It looked painful. We put some antibiotic w/painkiller on the wounds. So after the owner got through telling us how much he loved his dog they hiked on to the next shelter I guess which was approx. 7.1. miles. I thought it might have been more humane to hike back to civilization and take care of the dog by getting it off the trail.

A couple days later a dog ate some of my bread I was using to make my lunch. The owner apologized. At the next road crossing I saw the owner and the dog getting into a car while I was talking to a fellow hiker. I told her the dog ate my bread and she said, "that dog ate my candy bar two days ago. it was amusing in an annoying sort of way.

Heather
not funny when you need food and stores are not ever were:cool: neo

Heather
08-29-2005, 20:37
You're right Neo. Actually, I wasnt going to mention it but these people were a bit of a nightmare. The dog was the better behaved between him and his owner.

Heather

smokymtnsteve
08-29-2005, 21:01
dogs are a pain in the ass period,hell no,dogs are a real problem:cool: neo

right now I'm pounding in poles for 61 dogs in a new dog yard I'm building ...now that's a real pain,

think I'll bring a small dog team down this spring and do some traveling on the AT...

Chip
08-29-2005, 21:03
There have been alot of threads and post on this subject. If a dog is trained, on a leash and if you tent or tarp away from shelters, clean up after your dog and be considerate of the hikers who share the trail then take your dog. If you don't do these things then leave your dog at home. I follow these rules when I take my dogs with me. We have no problems and we cause no problems. ;)

Happy Trails,
Chip

CynJ
09-22-2005, 12:46
My husband and I have an 85lb boxer who is a couch potato until you mention "woods" or "hike" then she is sitting at the stairs with her leash in her mouth. lol....

It is my personal opinion that pets are not bad but the pet owners are. I totally respect those people who don't like dogs or have had bad experiences. And my decision to take my dog hiking/camping with me should not impact anyone else's enjoyment of the trail and I work hard to make sure of that.

When we do our day hikes or even just leisurely walking along easy trails we keep our dog under control. If there are a lot of people around she is on her 6ft lead, if there are a few folks around she in on her 30ft lead, if we are alone she is off lead. If she leaves a bm - it gets either scooped up in a baggie and brought out or if we are way in the woods - I will bury it.

No one wants to step in dog poo nor have a huge 85lb strange dog run up to them or their children uncontrolled. That being said -we know our dog VERY well and watch her body language with everyone (on or off lead). In the 2.5yrs we've had her the only person she doesn't greet as a long lost friend is my mother-in-law which shows that the dog just has good sense! :p

I can't imagine planning a week long hiking trip and not bringing her along. She is quiet and never barks unless the doorbell rings, and other then sniffing non-stop she's completely unintrusive in the woods. She is also obedient - and will come when called. And on a couple of occasions where we have strayed off trail and gotten lost -we just tell Myra to "find the trail" and off she goes.

I think the real trick is to have more people know their dogs better and really make an informed decision as to whether or not their individual dog is suited for the trail.

As far as some of the other issues (ie Parvo) - a responsible pet owner will have their dog vaccinated so this should be a non issue. As a side note - it is a good idea for any pet owner to have a copy of a health certificate in their pack (we carry one even for day hiking) - this will show their vaccinations etc and is good in case of emergency. And also speak with your vet about some additional vaccinations that are beneficial for a dog in the woods (ie Lyme, Lepto, Corona, etc)

Myra is a wonderful hiking for us and I am getting her geared up and in shape for my spring 06 CT/MA section hike. So if you see a short, plump woman with red hair and glasses walking with a large brindle boxer with natural ears - that will be me! Say hi! And if anyone's interested - here's Myra http://www.dogster.com/?110066

:cool:

mjaynes288
10-02-2005, 03:09
An adult dog vaccinated for parvo virus can still be a carrier and infect other animals that come in contact with its poop. Since animals will sometimes dig up burried treasure, the only way to prevent the spread is to pack the deposits out.

TAMBOURINE
10-02-2005, 06:27
I Hike With My Dog All The Time Because I Am A Female.my Dog Is A Search Dog And Has Been Trained I Feel If Your Dog Is Trained Better Than Your Kids Bring Them ....i Do Pick Up After My Dog She Has Been Out In The Bush So Much She Does Not Bark At Deer Or Chase Them Now If She Hears Something Stiring Around At Night She Will Growl To Let Me Know Something Is Out There But She Stays To Her Self And Right Up Under Me .if This Is The Case I Feel Bring Them .i Have Respect For Other Hikers If They Come Up To Play With Her I Let That Happend But She Pretty Much Is A Moma's Girl..

jaboobie
10-03-2005, 10:41
Sounds like the problems are with bad owners. My mom used to let our white german shepherd run free down the street to my grandparents house. He never bit anyone and is a general softie but I yelled at her not to do that because all it takes is one time for something to go wrong. Whenever I walked him, people would ask if he bites, I'd say, "I don't know. He's a dog." Then they'd look at me like I was an idiot and I'd explain that while he's never bitten anyone, I would certainly not guarantee that he won't chomp your face off and any dog owner that says "he/she doesn't bite" is a complete fool. Dogs do bite, just because they haven't doesn't mean they don't.

It's kind of like the hunting laws banning hunting in the areas adjacent to the trail. I actually met a couple who asked why I word an orange hat. Then they laughed saying that hunting wasn't allowed around the trail.

Well, good hunters don't need a law to tell them not to shoot towards the trail. Good hunters look at maps of where they plan to hunt and are aware of their surrounding and never shoot unless they can see what they're shooting at. Bad hunters don't care about laws like that and what good is the law when you've got an extra hole in your body?

I didn't used to wear orange but I bought some that winter day it rained small metal balls.

Yooper_Trooper
03-09-2006, 12:07
Here's one for you, suppose a thru-hiker who's blind, and has a seeing-eye dog with them shows up at Baxter State Park and wants to hike in there? Blind hikers should have a right to bring their seeing-eye dog with them into BSP.If the BSP will not allow that hikers seeing eye dog in, then the BSP is discriminating against the hiker. That should not be tolerated!

Vi+
03-09-2006, 15:04
Ridge,

You ask, “Should Dogs be allowed on the AT?” and provide two possible choices: (1) a conditional “No, I'm tired of stinking, muddy, noisy dogs in the shelters and on the trail.” and (2) an unconditional “Yes.”

I have owned several dogs. I have taken some along with me when I hiked. I am opposed for several reasons to taking dogs on a distance hike.

I am much more strongly opposed to telling people, even those with whom I disagree, they aren’t “allowed” to take a dog on the AT.

So, I have to answer both “Yes” and “No” which cancels out my response.

KirkMcquest
03-09-2006, 18:05
I think ridge was attacked by an unleashed rottweiler, and now he is on a rampage against dogs. Not really fair to those well mannered dogs, and responsible owners out there. He has good reason to be p.o'd, but I think he's lashing out in the wrong direction

Heater
03-09-2006, 18:26
I think ridge was attacked by an unleashed rottweiler, and now he is on a rampage against dogs. Not really fair to those well mannered dogs, and responsible owners out there. He has good reason to be p.o'd, but I think he's lashing out in the wrong direction

That's right. Now that you are exposed, you and longskirt as trolls, (as if most have not already noticed) you shift focus to another controversial character/topic on the board. *(board as opposed to USENET forum)

(so now you want to jump onto the dog debate?)

Nice try, Quirks. Diversion noted.

KirkMcquest
03-09-2006, 18:31
What are you talking about?? Dude, why don't you seek some help. Your obsession with me is starting to get wierd. Now you've got conspiracy theories to go along with your OCD issues.

Heater
03-09-2006, 18:42
What are you talking about?? Dude, why don't you seek some help. Your obsession with me is starting to get wierd. Now you've got conspiracy theories to go along with your OCD issues.

Yeah, right, McK00k!

KirkMcquest
03-09-2006, 19:01
That's right. Now that you are exposed, you and longskirt as trolls, (as if most have not already noticed) you shift focus to another controversial character/topic on the board. *(board as opposed to USENET forum)

(so now you want to jump onto the dog debate?)

Nice try, Quirks. Diversion noted.

Actually, you've cracked the case wide open Austex. I guess your just to smart for us, so it's probably time for longshanks and I to come clean. The truth is ( and you've probably figured this out by now), that Longshanks and I are working with the ALIENS ( no you were not crazy) in a complex and devious plan to take over the world using whiteblaze.net as a vehicle for our brain wave hypnosis. Our head leader Elvis Presley ( no you were not crazy) has identified you as our primary target ( no you were not crazy), on account of your high level of intelligence based on the rapier wit that you've demonstrated on this site.
Now that our plan has been spoiled by you ( curses!!), we'll have to go back to the drawing board. By the way you've probably figured out our role in the JFK thing, so I won't bother with the details ( no your not crazy).

Heater
03-09-2006, 19:03
Actually, you've cracked the case wide open Austex. I guess your just to smart for us, so it's probably time for longshanks and I to come clean. The truth is ( and you've probably figured this out by now), that Longshanks and I are working with the ALIENS ( no you were not crazy) in a complex and devious plan to take over the world using whiteblaze.net as a vehicle for our brain wave hypnosis. Our head leader Elvis Presley ( no you were not crazy) has identified you as our primary target ( no you were not crazy), on account of your high level of intelligence based on the rapier wit that you've demonstrated on this site.
Now that our plan has been spoiled by you ( curses!!), we'll have to go back to the drawing board. By the way you've probably figured out our role in the JFK thing, so I won't bother with the details ( no your not crazy).

K00k.......

Heater
03-09-2006, 19:07
Actually, you've cracked the case wide open Austex. I guess your just to smart for us, so it's probably time for longshanks and I to come clean. The truth is ( and you've probably figured this out by now), that Longshanks and I are working with the ALIENS ( no you were not crazy) in a complex and devious plan to take over the world using whiteblaze.net as a vehicle for our brain wave hypnosis. Our head leader Elvis Presley ( no you were not crazy) has identified you as our primary target ( no you were not crazy), on account of your high level of intelligence based on the rapier wit that you've demonstrated on this site.
Now that our plan has been spoiled by you ( curses!!), we'll have to go back to the drawing board. By the way you've probably figured out our role in the JFK thing, so I won't bother with the details ( no your not crazy).

BTW... Thanks for your time, you cannot get it back. LOL! :D :D :sun

Dances with Mice
03-09-2006, 19:25
Actually, you've cracked the case wide open Austex. I guess your just to smart for us, so it's probably time for longshanks and I to come clean. The truth is ( and you've probably figured this out by now), that Longshanks and I are working with the ALIENS ( no you were not crazy) in a complex and devious plan to take over the world using whiteblaze.net as a vehicle for our brain wave hypnosis. Our head leader Elvis Presley ( no you were not crazy) has identified you as our primary target ( no you were not crazy), on account of your high level of intelligence based on the rapier wit that you've demonstrated on this site.
Now that our plan has been spoiled by you ( curses!!), we'll have to go back to the drawing board. By the way you've probably figured out our role in the JFK thing, so I won't bother with the details ( no your not crazy).Those two are obviously Sports Jugglers.

I can prove it. Watch! Next he'll deny that he knows Jason Garfield.

Ridge
03-09-2006, 20:00
Well, it looks like the people here at WB want the dogs by a small margin. It's been this way since the poll started. I rant and rave because the majority of dogs with owners on the trail DO NOT adhere to LNT or keep their dogs on leash. Its just bad business not to do the things necessary to protect the enjoyment of non-dog hikers and the wildlife along this or any other trail.

imkms
03-09-2006, 20:23
I like dogs as much as the next guy, BUT the problem with dogs isn't really the dog, but the owners who are way to tolerant if their pet misbehaves. I have had many outings ruined by barking dogs (nothing like being awakened by a howling dog in the middle of the night). And if you enjoy seeing wildlife, expect to see less when a dog is around.

Catsgoing
03-09-2006, 20:38
Guide Dogs I thought are allowed any place. I have a friend that has a guide dog and that dog goes every place with him. I mean every place.........

KirkMcquest
03-09-2006, 21:03
BTW... Thanks for your time, you cannot get it back. LOL! :D :D :sun

See? you ARE a genius:rolleyes:

KirkMcquest
03-09-2006, 21:08
See? you ARE a genius:rolleyes:

just pretending to be a stupe to fool us! Your a wily one

the goat
03-09-2006, 21:41
i take my dog thru the smokies & baxter as often as possible.

KirkMcquest
03-10-2006, 02:57
i take my dog thru the smokies & baxter as often as possible.
Good for you, goat. Dogs rule!!

Lumberjack
03-10-2006, 10:26
Guide Dogs are allowed anywhere its owner goes by LAW.

Most of the dogs on the trail belong to dayhikers who arent exactly LNT anyway.

arch_incubus
03-10-2006, 11:18
Guide dogs. I know that if my sight was lost, i still wouldn't give up on my dream of thru-hiking. Might not be able to enjoy the sights, but there are still a world of smells, sounds, etc out there. Wouldn't want anyone to have a dream wrested from their grasp because of something beyond their control, especially if they are doing their best to overcome said obstacle.

On the base poll questions... C'mon people, hardly anything is ever either/or (outside of computers). There are just too many variations out there.

KirkMcquest
03-10-2006, 11:22
I support hikers with well-behaved dogs, on parts of the trail where its 'legal'. Aggressive dogs do not belong on the trail......ever.

joel137
03-21-2006, 00:28
As many have noted the basic problem is the owners. However, in a good 15 years of hiking on the trail I can say that of all the dogs I spent shelter nights with, only 1 dog was being fully responsibly handled by the owner. The owner & daughter were hiking with fido and made sure that the dog was leashed when others were around, did not allow the dog to jump up onto the floor of the shelter. etc. The dog slept with them in their tents at night and the owner was generally alert to whether or not the dog was making others nervous. I would rather the dog had not been their, and I think the owner (an experienced long distance hiker) felt that way as well; but I appreciated his responsible attitude towards the other hikers. Incidently, at one of the shelters I shared with them their was another hiker with a dog, which caused problems (nothing too major), but I spent some time hoping the muddy dog wasn't going to sleep between me and the owner. (luckily the dog slept on the other side.)

Dogs sleeping in shelters do not respect the other occupants. This is one of my more significant objections to otherwise reasonable owners.

I have been bitten by a dog on the trail, after sharing 2-shelters with the dog and owners (They kept the dog out of the shelters), the bite occured while we were on the trail together for the 3rd day. It was friendly dog and the owners assured me that he doesn't bite and was always gentle and kind with the neighborhood children. However, while going of trail to a a spring, I got a bite in the calf. Owners may think they know their dogs, but 99 out of 100 really don't know how their dog is going to behave in an alien environment.

I am basically against dogs on the trail, (perhaps not day-hikers and their dogs if properly restrained); but I doubt that one can actually ban them. I just wish the owners would behave responsibly rather than assuming that you will naturally love to have their dog sleep on your sleeping bag, etc.

I also suspect that the really long distance hikes are not good for most dogs and don't think most such owners take this into proper consideration.

plydem
06-08-2006, 16:56
Well, I haven't read this whole topic but it is obvious from many of the responses that there are alot of sub-human people in the hiker world. I can't believe the number of people who say they would try and kill or seriously injure a dog for simply getting their stuff dirty or barking. Are you people really that crude??!!??

Some of the other comments are quite laughable:

- One person said they didn't want dogs on the trail because they didn't like being woken up by barking/howling dogs. Did you happen to forget about the coyotes? Hmmm, would you want to ban coyotes from the trail? Not sure how you would accomplish that.

- Another said that dogs don't respect others in the shelter. Well, in looking through many of the other forums and people's trail journals, I see many who say the same thing about other hikers (snoring, coming in late/leaving early and waking people up, cooking where they aren't supposed to and leaving food everywhere). So, since there are more hikers out there than dogs, maybe we need to ban the hikers from shelters instead.

- About the peeing on the bushes thing: Are you saying that if a wild animal peed on a bush and it got on your leg or other body part that you would want to ban wild animals from the trail? Ridiculous!

Look people, obviously dogs on the trail is a sore subject for many people. I have dogs and mainly do day hikes with them. I know they aren't good with people and I take every precaution to not let them interact with people so noone is concerned (one of my dogs generally has a muzzle on for extra safety). However, dogs (just like wildlife) are not 100% predictable. Also, it's not the dogs fault - it is the owner's.

To repeat what others have said, I am happy to have dogs out there (especially since I am a dog lover) but owners need to be responsible and keep their dogs under control at all times. If they aren't then Animal Control or police should be notified (there are leash-laws, you know).

Ridge
06-08-2006, 18:24
Well, I haven't read this whole topic but it is obvious from many of the responses that there are alot of sub-human people in the hiker world. I can't believe the number of people who say they would try and kill or seriously injure a dog for simply getting their stuff dirty or barking. Are you people really that crude??!!??

Some of the other comments are quite laughable:

- One person said they didn't want dogs on the trail because they didn't like being woken up by barking/howling dogs. Did you happen to forget about the coyotes? Hmmm, would you want to ban coyotes from the trail? Not sure how you would accomplish that.

- Another said that dogs don't respect others in the shelter. Well, in looking through many of the other forums and people's trail journals, I see many who say the same thing about other hikers (snoring, coming in late/leaving early and waking people up, cooking where they aren't supposed to and leaving food everywhere). So, since there are more hikers out there than dogs, maybe we need to ban the hikers from shelters instead.

- About the peeing on the bushes thing: Are you saying that if a wild animal peed on a bush and it got on your leg or other body part that you would want to ban wild animals from the trail? Ridiculous!

Look people, obviously dogs on the trail is a sore subject for many people. I have dogs and mainly do day hikes with them. I know they aren't good with people and I take every precaution to not let them interact with people so noone is concerned (one of my dogs generally has a muzzle on for extra safety). However, dogs (just like wildlife) are not 100% predictable. Also, it's not the dogs fault - it is the owner's.

To repeat what others have said, I am happy to have dogs out there (especially since I am a dog lover) but owners need to be responsible and keep their dogs under control at all times. If they aren't then Animal Control or police should be notified (there are leash-laws, you know).

DO YOU KNOW WHY THE GSMNP DOESN'T ALLOW DOGS, BUT DO ALLOW HORSES? WHATS GOOD FOR THE SMOKIES IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE REST OF THE AT. PS: THE REASON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEARS.

plydem
06-08-2006, 20:32
DO YOU KNOW WHY THE GSMNP DOESN'T ALLOW DOGS, BUT DO ALLOW HORSES? WHATS GOOD FOR THE SMOKIES IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE REST OF THE AT. PS: THE REASON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEARS.

I'm not sure what that response had to do with my post. Does that have anything to do with the fact that people are willing to injure/kill dogs because they get their F*&%ing sleeping bags dirty!

mweinstone
06-08-2006, 21:00
when i was 6 i watched as the neighbors pit bull tore my parents limbs from there sockets. and i love dogs on the trail and i got bit bad this year in tenn and still want dogs on the trail. actualy my parents died of boring illnesses.

Nokia
06-08-2006, 21:04
I would start with removing aggresive, mean, stupid, sloppy, or annoyingly loud people before I ever thought of removing dogs. The one "mean" dog I have ever met on the trail was General's. But I got him some ham in Suches and we were chill. There are so many other issues to consider on the trail. If a person can control thier dog, then screw it.I've been more inclined to yell at or kick boy scouts.

Ridge
06-09-2006, 09:48
I would start with removing aggresive, mean, stupid, sloppy, or annoyingly loud people before I ever thought of removing dogs................

This could be a clue of why so many abandoned dogs are on the trail!!

Skyline
06-09-2006, 10:37
We interact with all sorts of creatures in the woods--wild, tame, even human which could also be either.

Singling out dogs for banishment or worse makes no sense to me. If you have your dog under control, preferably on a short leash, they do not present a problem. If not, I'd banish the humans who refuse to control their pets.

Ridge
06-09-2006, 12:13
......... If you have your dog under control, preferably on a short leash, they do not present a problem. ...........

Note to the people waiting on this to happen: ....when ice formations are sited in Hell there's a good chance this will come next.

SGT Rock
06-09-2006, 12:28
Well there is more to consider than just controlling your pet. But things like "disease carrier" (vaccinated against Parvo mans your dog can be a carrier to spread it to forest critters that are not vaccinated) and "secondary predadtion" (your dog's, the natural and instictive hunter, presence interfering with the reproduction, feeding, and other actions of wild animals) seem to get glossed over by those that want to bring their dogs. Anyway, my experience is everyone thinks their dog is good and/or controlled. So statements to the effect of "control your pet to be OK" are interpreted by the owners to mean their dog is OK. It seems pointless to even point this out anymore.

grrickar
06-09-2006, 19:02
No dogs - and we should ban all other animals from the AT as well. If we banned people there would be less trash and disruption of the natural environment. ;)

I'm okay with dogs that are well behaved. I have seen dogs run into a camp and start sticking their noses into people's dinner. I have a dog myself and love my dog, but any dog that comes between me and my dinner after a day of hikin' just might end up *as* my dinner. MMMMM...BBQ dog :p

mweinstone
06-10-2006, 00:38
and i take dog cooking classes. and i kill dogs for a living down at the pound. and im eating dog right now. so you see dogs are my lively hood and i enjoy hiking with them then eating them at night in camp. sometimes with cheese sause mix from my mac and cheese. sometimes deep fryed, baked, and of course my fav,... candied dog for desert.

Ridge
06-10-2006, 05:18
and i take dog cooking classes. and i kill dogs for a living down at the pound. and im eating dog right now. so you see dogs are my lively hood and i enjoy hiking with them then eating them at night in camp. sometimes with cheese sause mix from my mac and cheese. sometimes deep fryed, baked, and of course my fav,... candied dog for desert.

All I can say is DOG GONE!

Heater
06-10-2006, 13:17
I have dogs and mainly do day hikes with them. I know they aren't good with people and I take every precaution to not let them interact with people so noone is concerned (one of my dogs generally has a muzzle on for extra safety).

I am a dog lover too. Taking your dog out on a hike (where the terrain is most likely strenuous) and muzzleing it is borderline animal cruelty. I think you should step back and rethink your actions.:mad:

Heater
06-10-2006, 13:28
I'm not sure what that response had to do with my post. Does that have anything to do with the fact that people are willing to injure/kill dogs because they get their F*&%ing sleeping bags dirty!

If an uncontrolled dog pi$$es on my $300+ sleeping bag, I am going to be very upset. If it is your dog, you should be willing to pay the cleaning bill and loan me YOUR bag until the situation is resolved. (or hand over the $300+ bucks for a new bag)

I really don't know if I could ever be comfortable in a bag after somebody's mutt has pissed all over it! Pay up buddy!

Ridge
06-10-2006, 13:35
If an uncontrolled dog pi$$es on my $300+ sleeping bag, I am going to be very upset. If it is your dog, you should be willing to pay the cleaning bill and loan me YOUR bag until the situation is resolved. (or hand over the $300+ bucks for a new bag)

I really don't know if I could ever be comfortable in a bag after somebody's mutt has pissed all over it! Pay up buddy!

The scenario of getting someone to payup or use their bag will happen every other time "Hell freezes over"!!! I say "Dog Gone"

stoned bear
06-10-2006, 17:31
well dogs are allright on the trail, but the owners should pitch a tent... I've been in a shelter and I have told people to go pitch a tent

Ridge
06-10-2006, 19:08
well dogs are allright on the trail, but the owners should pitch a tent... I've been in a shelter and I have told people to go pitch a tent

The usual reply is: "You go pitch a tent" and followed by anything from, "I was here first", "No one else is complaining about the dog(s)" to "No rules against me having my dog" etc, etc, etc

I've found that even with rules, such as in the GSMNP, people will try to sneak the dogs in, stealth camping etc. And the latest thing is getting some kind of special mental support or balance impaired permit, I guess similar to a Blind person's permit, to have a dog with them. I now here if they are caught trying to pass off these bogus permits are getting into a little trouble with the NPS.

stoned bear
06-10-2006, 19:46
well if I get to a shelter first and someone tries to bring there dog in to sleep well they need to respect other hikers. If someone is persistive about telling me to go pitch a tent.... well the dog might be missing

SawnieRobertson
06-10-2006, 20:01
On Memorial Day I hiked in Grayson Highlands between Massie Gap and Rhododendron. Gap. 'Twas hot, and the bugs were out. Ordinarily, I would say these were not perfect conditions for either hiker or beast (dog). Yet, we met numerous, scads, of dogs, off leash, and not a one was a problem. I have had a real prejudice against any dog on trail unleashed. These dogs made me ashamed of my attitude. They were noticeable only for their pleasantness. Seasoned? Well-trained? Just loved? I don't know the answer, but I do know that they "belonged," without exception, on the trail as much as any of the rest of us who were out there.

Ridge
06-10-2006, 21:03
..........They were noticeable only for their pleasantness. Seasoned? Well-trained? Just loved? I don't know the answer, but I do know that they "belonged," without exception, on the trail as much as any of the rest of us who were out there.


Sounds like a room deodorizer commercial. On a serious note, we've been talking about dogs that are ALIVE!

corentin
06-10-2006, 21:15
Yet, we met numerous, scads, of dogs, off leash, and not a one was a problem. I have had a real prejudice against any dog on trail unleashed. These dogs made me ashamed of my attitude.

Dogs unleashed in public are a bad idea, well trained or not. There are leash laws in my neighborhood but nobody really obeys them. When I take my leashed dog out stupid mutts are always running up to us. My dog is not real dog friendly . Some day the neighbors poodle will probably be reduced to chunky bits. So sorry, don't want your dog harmed ? Obey the laws,keep him leashed where he will be out of harms way.
Love dogs, just keep the idiot owners off the trail and all will be fine.

latte
06-10-2006, 23:08
If you want to bring your pet along on a hike, that's fine. Please keep it on a leash. At least when you get close to the shelters. I have never met a trail dog yet that didn't try to sample my dinner while I cooked it. Even with me pushing him out of the way, usually it looks at me and licks my face, YYUUCCHH! Of course about 5 seconds too late the owner shows up. Happy dog wagging its tail greets its owner and the owner can't understand why I'm not happy to see him and his dog.

plydem
06-12-2006, 10:08
I am a dog lover too. Taking your dog out on a hike (where the terrain is most likely strenuous) and muzzleing it is borderline animal cruelty. I think you should step back and rethink your actions.:mad:

That would be true if the muzzle didn't allow the dog to breathe or drink normally. Of course, I have a wire basket muzzle that allows both. He can still bark at people as well. Keeps away all the idiots I see on this post.

Everything else I see on this post is way past borderline cruelty. Of course, I am sure it is just a bunch of macho idiots that figure they can talk big in an internet forum and wouldn't really do the things they say. If it isn't, I am sad for the human race.

plydem
06-12-2006, 10:13
If an uncontrolled dog pi$$es on my $300+ sleeping bag, I am going to be very upset. If it is your dog, you should be willing to pay the cleaning bill and loan me YOUR bag until the situation is resolved. (or hand over the $300+ bucks for a new bag)

I really don't know if I could ever be comfortable in a bag after somebody's mutt has pissed all over it! Pay up buddy!

I agee with you 100%. I would certainly pay for any damage my dog did if it was un-controlled. What I don't agree with is the notion that a dog should be physically punished for being a dog. Dogs get dirty and wet, they pee on things, they bark and they try to eat your food. If we extend the sentiments to the human race, the people on this post would be willing to injure or kill people for being human (being stupid, being overly talkative, being rude, etc.).

Fiddler
06-12-2006, 10:30
I have a dog. Anytime he is outside the fence, or in front where there is no fence, he is on a leash. I take him for walks from a few blocks to maybe 2 miles at a local park. I would never consider taking him out for anything over 2 days for his own comfort. But no one will tell me where I can take him within the law. That is my decision. As long as I have him under control and clean up after him I do not care what some jerks think. And I do not have to protect him from anyone who might take a swing at him just because he is a dog. At 110 pounds and solid muscle he is quite capable of that, and friendly though he is, he will defend himself. And I would let him if he was attacked simply because he was there.

kritter
06-12-2006, 18:22
As long as it's a well behaved dog I dont see a problem. I love animals and enjoy playing with people's dogs on the trail. They brighten my day.

But it's also commen sense not to bring a vicious animal into the woods. Use your better judgment.

And to adress the the poll... "I'm tired of stinking, muddy, noisy dogs in the shelters" All the hikers in shelters are probably just as dirty and stinky so hush!

Ridge
06-13-2006, 01:25
............Everything else I see on this post is way past borderline cruelty. Of course, I am sure it is just a bunch of macho idiots that figure they can talk big in an internet forum and wouldn't really do the things they say. If it isn't, I am sad for the human race.

A law enforcement officer for the USFS told me once he was bitten by an unleashed dog within feet of the owner. The owner of course spewed apologies and explanations. He then went on to tell me he will shoot without question if put in that position again. I then asked him "the dog?"

I also believe that the vast majority of the "macho idiots" really meant what they said. If ever attacked by another dog and I'm able to kill the dog, I WILL without a second thought. Owners who thinks every hiker should love their animal like themselves are the IDIOTS. You leave them off the leash, expect the worse! So go ahead and be sad not glad for the hiker human race.

Blue Jay
06-13-2006, 07:20
Of course, I am sure it is just a bunch of macho idiots that figure they can talk big in an internet forum and wouldn't really do the things they say. If it isn't, I am sad for the human race.

I am sooo glad you are hiking "someday whimsical sigh", since that never comes.

plydem
06-13-2006, 08:50
A law enforcement officer for the USFS told me once he was bitten by an unleashed dog within feet of the owner. The owner of course spewed apologies and explanations. He then went on to tell me he will shoot without question if put in that position again. I then asked him "the dog?"

I also believe that the vast majority of the "macho idiots" really meant what they said. If ever attacked by another dog and I'm able to kill the dog, I WILL without a second thought. Owners who thinks every hiker should love their animal like themselves are the IDIOTS. You leave them off the leash, expect the worse! So go ahead and be sad not glad for the hiker human race.

Obviously, if a dog was attacking me I would defend myself. I am referring to all the people who say they will beat the dog if it tries to eat their food or step on their sleeping bag. I don't expect everyone to love my dog or any other dog for that matter. I just expect that they are showed the same respect as we give our fellow humans. Like I said, would you beat up a guy for stepping on your sleeping bag?

Also, it is the people who let their dogs run around off-leash who are to blame here (not the dog). I don't allow my dogs off-leash because it is not appropriate or respectful of those who don't appreciate them.

SGT Rock
06-13-2006, 11:13
Obviously, if a dog was attacking me I would defend myself. I am referring to all the people who say they will beat the dog if it tries to eat their food or step on their sleeping bag.
So if a hiker started eating his food in front of you you would just be very, very angry about it huff huff huff. Or if a wet dirty hiker decided to pull up and just take over your sleeping bag you would sit back with cross words and ask someone else to get them off? I think that sort of person needs a little 'splainin about ettiquete.

I don't expect everyone to love my dog or any other dog for that matter. I just expect that they are showed the same respect as we give our fellow humans. Like I said, would you beat up a guy for stepping on your sleeping bag?

Not just stepping on it, but see above. How about a hiker that acted like this:

You meet him the first time and he sticks his nose in your crotch or jumps up on you and gives you a big old hug and kiss uninvited. Or worse yet he starts yelling that if you don't get back he is going to attack you with a deadly weapon (out of the clear blue). Probably would piss you off.

Then later that day you get to the only water for miles, and the idiot is standing in it with his bare feet and smiling at you like nothing is wrong with what he is doing. He may even have a hiking buddy with him lookinig at you like "sorry, he doesn't always do this". But the fact is he is still doing it. Heck, he may even pee in it as you watch.

Later that day you find him squatting in the trail taking a crap. When he gets done he just leaves it laying where anyone can step in it and walks off. At least he didn't leave paper too you could say in his defense.

Then later on you get to camp and there he is again. This time he is running around camp chasing frogs and birds and yelling at them. He may even go sticking his nose in your tent just to see what you have. Later, when you start cooking dinner, he comes over and stares at you and begs for your food. Or maybe even tries to get into your food to eat it while you are not looking.

Finally you go to lay down and find he has gotten mud all over your stuff and even urinated on your tent because he thinks it is funny. Nice smell. If you ask his partner to pay for the cleaning or get mad, it seems you are the one with the bad attitude, not the guy messing up your stuff.

If this guy were a person, we would all want him banned from the trail and it could even end up as a fight in camp. If it is someones dog they tell you that it is out of character and he never does it. Then you are expected to be nice to everyone about it.


Also, it is the people who let their dogs run around off-leash who are to blame here (not the dog). I don't allow my dogs off-leash because it is not appropriate or respectful of those who don't appreciate them.
But the truth seems to be that everyone thinks their dog is not the problem. Seems that if a hiker did even one of the above, they would be considered someone for being shunned by people on the trail, but everyone expects others to put up with a dog doing it. After all it is the person that is the problem, not the dog.:-? But then again, if they didn't bring the dog in the first place, they wouldn't have an issue in the first place.

But then again I will probably get accused of being a dog hater again.

LostInSpace
06-13-2006, 11:34
Sgt. Rock, your response is very apropos.

Alligator
06-13-2006, 12:18
If my 2 year old hiker did some (not all) of the above in #168, I would hope that folks would understand. Kids are so unpredictable sometimes. I know we were all kids once, but having a child helps to understand this. Darn that little guy can make me laugh too. When it comes to kids, and dogs and hikers for that matter, there are levels of acceptable conduct. Not every dog and owner should (or will-give it up already) be banned from the trail. To argue from a position where you want things 100% your way is a bit unrealistic, especially considering it's a public resource we are talking about. No dogs--no--, all dogs--no--, some well behaved dogs and owners--ok.

A huge percentage of problems would be solved if everyone would just keep their dogs on leash at all times, under control, and out of the shelters.

P.S. If some (not all) of the female hikers want to nose--well, let's just leave it at I wouldn't mind;) .

saimyoji
06-13-2006, 12:20
Rock, you dog hating NAZI. :D

I've commented on this topic before. A recent walk from Wind Gap to DWG left me chillin' at Kirkridge Shelter. A guy shows up with his dog, off leash, and I'm just digging into my dinner. Little pup runs straight up to me and another hiker clearly interested in our food. The guy called him back and he obeyed. About 30 seconds later the pup jumped up onto the platform where all our bags were laid out. He sniffed around, didn't walk on anyones bag before the guy called him back.

What's my point? The dog was clearly trained to voice commands, but wasn't trained in what not to do. Its not enough for me that the dog respond to a command to leave me alone. I want it to leave me alone without the need for the command. What if the guy didn't notice until the dog had tipped over my stove, or jumped all over my sleeping bag? I certainly would have been pissed.

LostInSpace
06-13-2006, 12:43
If my 2 year old hiker did some (not all) of the above in #168, I would hope that folks would understand.

By 2 years old, a dog should have been obedience trained. It takes a lot longer for the owner to be obedience trained.


A huge percentage of problems would be solved if everyone would just keep their dogs on leash at all times, under control, and out of the shelters.

As well, a huge percentage of problems would be solved if dogs would just keep their owners on leash at all times, under control, and out of the shelters. :D

SGT Rock
06-13-2006, 12:46
To argue from a position where you want things 100% your way is a bit unrealistic, especially considering it's a public resource we are talking about. No dogs--no--, all dogs--no--, some well behaved dogs and owners--ok.
Well I agree there, I never expect anything to go my way, I just do what I think I should do and try to be nice to others.

But the point of my argument isn't that everything should go my way, it is to show how the behavior of the dog does impact those around them, that people that post on the side of "control your dog or leave it at home" really mean more than just keep your dog on a leash. It is designed to show how an animal's impact on those around them is not viewed as welcome when the owner could think the very same behavior could be cute and acceptable. It was designed to get others to think about what things there are to consider when they are out there when it comes to a dog's actions. I know a few people that hike with dogs that find this behavior cute and dog-like, while the others around them never seem to be able to get them to acknowledge their animal is doing something that affects others around them negatively.

Were I camping with my boys (and I have) I tell them before we go out what they are expected to do and how to act, I tell them when they are being rude and what to do to make it right. I camp away from others until they (my kids) get basic trail etiquette, and then introduce them to situations where they can learn how to interact around other people. Too many folks simply take Fido out without any training and expect others to deal with it. No training for trail, and often no acknowledgment of the poor behavior. In fact I can remember being threatened by multiple dogs belonging to a hiker while I was with my kids, and I was the one that was told to chill out when I simply went to a defensive posture to protect my my child from the dogs. I don't expect your two year old to gang up with other two year olds to harass hikers.

But I would say with the numbers of people voting that they would rather others keep their dogs at home (close to HALF) that dog owners should take this as a strong sign that others may be nice to them on the trail, but must not happy with how their dog is acting. I tend to believe that 42% of people responding didn't grow up dog haters, but learned to dread seeing dogs on the trail from their exposure to dogs on the trail. I know I did.


A huge percentage of problems would be solved if everyone would just keep their dogs on leash at all times, under control, and out of the shelters.
I think the problem with that statement is what one dog owners believes "control" means is not what others expect. One may say they have perfect control of their animal yet totally ignore their dog crapping in the middle of the trail.


P.S. If some (not all) of the female hikers want to nose--well, let's just leave it at I wouldn't mind;) . ;) don't tell dixicritter.

Ridge
06-13-2006, 13:47
You can have the most well behaved dog, but let a postman or FedEx man come to your door, and the dog goes into attack mode. No one knows why dogs can be this selective. I know some strangers have come to my door and my dog just rolls over. Maybe he thinks the uniformed guys are coming to take him away. Leashed dogs under the owners control, and not tied behind the shelter to bark and howl, is whats needed. I still question how a sleeping dog hiker in a shelter can control the dogs wandering, maybe putting the leash around the owners neck is the answer.

Alligator
06-13-2006, 14:07
Rock, I haven't read anything of late from you that puts in you in the some dog camp. Am I mistaken? I agree with you about the need to educate people.


Were I camping with my boys (and I have) I tell them before we go out what they are expected to do and how to act, I tell them when they are being rude and what to do to make it right. I camp away from others until they (my kids) get basic trail etiquette, and then introduce them to situations where they can learn how to interact around other people.
Your kids never did anything wrong while hiking or impacted anyone else? Sounds like you own a dog;) .

I don't expect your two year old to gang up with other two year olds to harass hikers. Don't be fooled there's a reason for the cap on the number of kids per teacher in daycare.


But I would say with the numbers of people voting that they would rather others keep their dogs at home (close to HALF) that dog owners should take this as a strong sign that others may be nice to them on the trail, but must not happy with how their dog is acting. I tend to believe that 42% of people responding didn't grow up dog haters, but learned to dread seeing dogs on the trail from their exposure to dogs on the trail. I know I did.
If this was a random poll, that number is still significantly (statistically) less than 50%. You're in the minority.

Ok just kidding with you. You're right, people do need to better control their dogs. Obviously. If they don't learn to do a better job of it, that number could turn into a broad enough majority to impact their legal right in most places to hike with their dog. Without spending a lot of time on it, I think there have been a couple instances of folks describing good control of their animals in dog threads here at WB. And it would work for some dogs. Very often what happens though is that these workable solutions get drowned out by the anti-dog crowd. Maybe a nicely written dog etiquette Article would be in order. Then we could print out little cards and give them to Ridge to hand out.

plydem
06-13-2006, 16:26
To Sgt. Rock and Ridge specifically and the rest of the group in general:

Well, after Rock's second-to-last post, I was planning on just throwing in the towel and letting sleeping dogs lie (so to speak). After his and Ridge's last posts, I think we are finally seeing eye-to-eye.

I understand the impact my dogs have on the trail environment perhaps better than most since one of my dogs was abused as a puppy and is now fear-aggressive. That is why he is muzzled (with a wire basket muzzle to allow easy breathing and drinking but not biting) and why I step way off the trail when other hikers want to pass (no matter how wide the trail is). I also apologize ahead of time for the fact that my dog may bark but I am in complete control of his actions. Even my friendly dog is not allowed to interact with others (she's a little too friendly) because I know most people won't be ok with that.

When I am out with my dogs, I am the first person to yell at another dog owner if their dog is off-leash. They need to understand that I will not be responsible for my dogs actions against their dog if he/she decides to get into it with my dog(s). Especially the ones who insist "It's OK, my dog is friendly!" "I don't give a S#$T - my dog is not so get your damn dog now!" is what I come back with.

So, while I will still insist that dogs be allowed on the trail, I agree that bad dog owners and their dogs should be warned of the consequences of their actions.

Ridge
06-13-2006, 16:49
"After much thought and many years of the public using the Park with their pets, Baxter decided there should be at least one place in Maine where wild animals could roam free without fear of or exposure to domesticated pets and the associated parasite and disease transmission which might affect either population irreversibly. Please respect the sacrifice Percival Baxter made himself and asked all pet lovers to make: do not bring your dog into the park. Violating this park regulation or any park regulation subjects you to law enforcement action, not the way we, as park staff, enjoy greeting you after a long hike."

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/thru-hiking.html

This should be the reason dogs be banned from the ENTIRE A.T. not just selective areas along the trail. If it impacts one area, it impacts all areas. If any dog hikers want to dispute the above Baxter SP reasons, lets hear it.

corentin
06-13-2006, 16:55
Sounds like it could be a good argument to ban people too. Ban people from the rest of the trail. Think of all the garbage/sewage/wildlife disruption they create.

Ridge
06-13-2006, 16:57
Sounds like it could be a good argument to ban people too. Ban people from the rest of the trail. Think of all the garbage/sewage/wildlife disruption they create.

I've never heard of people spreading parvo. Anyway, dogs get booted first.

corentin
06-13-2006, 17:13
I think comparing the Baxter area to the rest of the trail could be a little apples to oranges. The area is more remote for one thing, not a lot of chance that local dogs could be running around spreading parvo like many other areas of the trail. It is more feasible to quarantine Baxter then the entire AT, kind of like trying to quarantine Hawaii as opposed to Kansas.

Alligator
06-13-2006, 17:27
"After much thought and many years of the public using the Park with their pets, Baxter decided there should be at least one place in Maine where wild animals could roam free without fear of or exposure to domesticated pets and the associated parasite and disease transmission which might affect either population irreversibly. Please respect the sacrifice Percival Baxter made himself and asked all pet lovers to make: do not bring your dog into the park. Violating this park regulation or any park regulation subjects you to law enforcement action, not the way we, as park staff, enjoy greeting you after a long hike."

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/thru-hiking.html

This should be the reason dogs be banned from the ENTIRE A.T. not just selective areas along the trail. If it impacts one area, it impacts all areas. If any dog hikers want to dispute the above Baxter SP reasons, lets hear it.I'll bite. There have been dogs throughout this country for hundreds (thousands? Native Americans have dogs?) of years. There are and will continue to be feral dogs up and down the AT. Demonstrate that hikers' dogs are a vector of serious concern. Maybe at BSP, but along some of the narrow strips of land where the corridor is merely a strip?

Ridge
06-13-2006, 17:27
I think comparing the Baxter area to the rest of the trail could be a little apples to oranges. The area is more remote for one thing, not a lot of chance that local dogs could be running around spreading parvo like many other areas of the trail. It is more feasible to quarantine Baxter then the entire AT, kind of like trying to quarantine Hawaii as opposed to Kansas.

You must be a land developer as well as a dog hiker.
This is the same kind of reasoning that developers and big business use when encroaching on the AT. I wish the ATC and Government Groups in charge of the AT pick up on and implement the same reasons that Baxter SP and GSMNP already have.

corentin
06-13-2006, 17:32
You must be a land developer as well as a dog hiker.

No, to both of those. I was simply stating what I perceived as a flaw in your reasoning, not my personal beliefs.

Ridge
06-13-2006, 17:40
I'll bite. There have been dogs throughout this country for hundreds (thousands? Native Americans have dogs?) of years. There are and will continue to be feral dogs up and down the AT. Demonstrate that hikers' dogs are a vector of serious concern. Maybe at BSP, but along some of the narrow strips of land where the corridor is merely a strip?

You sound just like a land developer but who happens to like dogs on the trail. These kind of rationalizations are same used by them, along with big business and in some cases the government. The attitude of "its too late to save the trail" or "the environment is already shot whats a little more going to hurt" attitude just don't get it in my book. If keeping just the leashed dogs from the AT , depriving their owners of the companionship, saves just one wild animal, then its worth it. Maybe some of you don't give a crap about the wildlife, but I do!

corentin
06-13-2006, 17:44
You must be a politician. If anyone disagrees with you, try name calling, as in " Those turrible people are trying to murder innocent babies, old people, and chipmunks.......waaaaaaa"

Ridge
06-13-2006, 19:23
You must be a politician. If anyone disagrees with you, try name calling, as in " Those turrible people are trying to murder innocent babies, old people, and chipmunks.......waaaaaaa"

I haven't name called. But your new windmill project in Maine will not suit my constituency. So, off with your dogs head.

SGT Rock
06-13-2006, 21:04
Actually dogs are a vector for parvo. Parvo is quite easy for dogs to become a carrier, especially domesticated animals because they are vaccinated against it, but still routinely exposed to it. I do have a story of loosing a puppy to parvo soon after we got her. We couldn't figure out how that could have happened at first because our other dog who was with her was fine. Turns out (according to vet) this is quite common. Point learned - get parvo vaccinations ASAP, don't ever put it off a couple of days.

Now, imagine all the domesticated dogs, immune to the disease, spreading it along the trail and all points adjacent to the trail along it, creating an inisial in-road of parvo for exposing animals along the trail. Ever see an animal die from parvo - not pretty at all.

This is why the GSMNP does not let animals on backcountry trails either.

So yes, it is a problem. It has been brought up before, and like I said in post #147 most people will hear about this and decide to ignore it because they have decided that their animal is not the problem - everyone elses is.

This seems the the prevelant attitude, even from the guy that has to muzzel his animal to take it on the trail. He has basically decided that all liability has to be incoured by everyone else on the trail by the attitude I read in his post. Would rather bring an animal known to have dangerous tendencied on the trail and basicaly dare anyone to get to close than sacrifice and leave it home. The same could be said for anyone that takes their dog in the woods - he may carry parvo, but that isn't their problem, let others deal with it. Seems like the same attitude that causes trash to build up on the trail - except this trash is a little more dangerous.

Of course next we will get someone that decides to minimize it by proposing banning all people if that bothers us.

Naw, bring all your pets. You guys can do no wrong.

corentin
06-13-2006, 23:30
I was stating a reason as to why it would make sense to close certain areas to dogs ( much more then others) not that I thought dogs should be allowed into those areas.
I would not hike with a dog. The logistics of dealing with PROPER care and control of an animal, while I am attempting to hike would be more then my small brain could handle. Hence, my dog will never spread disease or annoyance to any innocent bystanders or helpless animals. So, no, my dog is not the problem.

corentin
06-13-2006, 23:35
Of course next we will get someone that decides to minimize it by proposing banning all people if that bothers us.

Not minimizing, a poor attempt to state that humans have more potential to damage the surrounding enviroment then dogs. The problem is not with the dogs to begin with, it is with their disrespectful and careless owners.

Alligator
06-13-2006, 23:54
While a relatively new disease (est. 1978), Canine Parvovirus has already spread around the world. The disease is virulent, persistent, and wild populations already have it. IMO, you're not preventing anything by advocating keeping the dogs home. BTW, I don't own a dog.

While the dog may show no symptons, several sources I have read say that the dog is only infectious for about 18-30 days.
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_canine_parvovirus.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/parvo/2000/cat-dog_parvovirus.html
These sources says that carrier dogs do not exist
http://www.2ndchance.info/parvo.htm [see Immunity to the disease]
http://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html [see contagious stage]

Carriers of all kinds can pick up the disease from feces and move it around. Physically, not internally.

Canine Parvovirus already went through GSMNP. If dogs aren't allowed in the backcountry due to parvo, they're running a boneheaded prevention program (source please). It was my understanding it was to minimize dog bear physical interactions--fighting.

From http://www.nps.gov/grsm/gsmsite/justforfun.html
Pets are allowed in campgrounds, picnic areas, parking areas, and along roads, but must be kept on a leash at all times. The leash must not exceed 6 feet in length. Pets are only allowed on two short walking paths--the Gatlinburg Trail and the Oconaluftee River Trail. Pets are not allowed on any other park trails. Pets should not be left unattended in vehicles or RVs.

BSP from what I have read, has never allowed dogs. That's not to say it's not already in the park.


Many mammal species have their own parvoviruses. Canine parvovirus affects canid species, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and bears.

Given the worldwide prevalence and the long persistence of external virus I am very doubtful that hikers' dogs are introducing new parvo to virgin areas. If there is any data to refute this, please do. Also, do some reading and come to your own reasoned conclusions. And like I said, I don't own a dog.

Ridge
06-14-2006, 00:33
Not minimizing, a poor attempt to state that humans have more potential to damage the surrounding enviroment then dogs. The problem is not with the dogs to begin with, it is with their disrespectful and careless owners.

So what ! we're talking parasite and disease transmission andnot arguing my owner is better than your owner.

corentin
06-14-2006, 00:40
Did you get your rabies shot after your dog bite?

plydem
06-14-2006, 09:12
This seems the the prevelant attitude, even from the guy that has to muzzel his animal to take it on the trail. He has basically decided that all liability has to be incoured by everyone else on the trail by the attitude I read in his post. Would rather bring an animal known to have dangerous tendencied on the trail and basicaly dare anyone to get to close than sacrifice and leave it home.

Apparently you didn't read everything I said about how I bring my dog hiking. As noted, I step way off the trail, I don't go to shelters and the whole point of the muzzle is that if anyone does get close there is an extra layer of protection. When I was talking about liability, it was related to the other owners who do not control their dogs and allow them to run right up to my dogs (who are in complete control) and think that everything will be just fine since their dogs are friendly. If I enjoy hiking with my dog and don't allow him to interact with other people, that's my business.

Now everyone has gotten onto another subject of disease and dogs. This is certainly something to consider but I would like to see some research that discusses the impact of the domestic canine on the wild animal population before I make a final judgement on that issue. From what I have read, the origins of the disease may be from wild animals (mink) or cats but it is not clear where canine parvo virus comes from (it didn't even show up until about 30 years ago). It may be a mutation of feline distemper.

Believe me, having done animal rescue for several years, I know how horrible this disease can be. We've heard of shelters losing whole puppy litters in 24-48 hours from Parvo. Of course, if we take this argument to the extreme (which I can imagine some of the people on this list will do) it might be argued that dogs shouldn't be allowed out of your house since there is still wildlife in the cities and towns. Not that this would still completely eradicate the spread of the disease since it can be transmitted easily on your shoes or other items of clothing that have had contact with infected dogs. Not such an easy thing for us to just say lets ban dogs from the AT because of this disease since that doesn't solve the problem. I'm not saying it wouldn't help but noone has proved to me yet that it would or wouldn't.

SGT Rock
06-14-2006, 09:45
While a relatively new disease (est. 1978), Canine Parvovirus has already spread around the world. The disease is virulent, persistent, and wild populations already have it. IMO, you're not preventing anything by advocating keeping the dogs home. BTW, I don't own a dog.

I own a couple now and have had lots of them :D

But anyway...

Well according to this site (http://www.workingdogs.com/parvofaq.htm) an area can be infected for around 9 months (see quote later). The virus does not live forever without a host. It also states that normally the ground will normally hold the virus for 5 months even with the most optimal conditions:


Parvo is highly contagious to unprotected dogs, and the virus can remain infectious in ground contaminated with fecal material for five months or more if conditions are favorable. Extremely hardy, most disinfectants cannot kill the virus, however chlorine bleach is the most effective and inexpensive agent that works, and is commonly used by veterinarians.

So while I agree that the statement about everywhere is considered to be exposed, it doesn't just live on forever without a host to keep it going. The point was for a pet owner to assume everywhere is contaminated by parvo and get their dogs protected, not to say parvo is actually everywhere all the time.



While the dog may show no symptoms, several sources I have read say that the dog is only infectious for about 18-30 days.
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_canine_parvovirus.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/parvo/2000/cat-dog_parvovirus.html

from one of those sources you quoted above:

Infected dogs shed virus (in their stool) in gigantic amounts during the 2 weeks following exposure. Because such enormous amounts of virus are shed, there is a HUGE potential for environmental contamination when a infected dog has been there.

So the dog does pass the virus, and does it in spades!


These sources says that carrier dogs do not exist
http://www.2ndchance.info/parvo.htm [see Immunity to the disease]
http://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html [see contagious stage]

And from another source:

Canine parvovirus is carried by dogs. Adult dogs may be infected
carriers without showing any clinical signs. Dogs with the typical diarrhea that parvovirus causes shed the virus as well. It can last a long time in the environment, perhaps as long as 9 months or longer.

So dogs can be and are carriers and do spread it from intestines as well as from other forms of distribution as you say next:


Carriers of all kinds can pick up the disease from feces and move it around. Physically, not internally.

So this statement is simply a wrong interpretation of what some sources say about how it can also be spread which is:

Dogs and puppies can contract parvo even if they never leave their yards. Parvo virus, despite what you might hear, is NOT an airborne virus. It is excreted in the feces of infected dogs, and if someone -- human, dog, bird, etc. -- steps in (or otherwise comes in contact with) the excrement, the possibility for contamination is great. Some people speculate that birds invading a dog's food dish can deposit the parvovirus there. If you think you may have come in contact with parvovirus, a strong solution of bleach and water does kill the virus, so you can wash your shoes and clothes, even your hands with it, to reduce the risk of infecting your dog.


Canine Parvovirus already went through GSMNP. If dogs aren't allowed in the back-country due to parvo, they're running a boneheaded prevention program (source please). It was my understanding it was to minimize dog bear physical interactions--fighting.

Except that if you figure that in 1978 when it did roll through and kill off animals, then give it about 9 months or so to die off on it's own without a host, that the area should be fairly free for animals that didn't die from it to come back. Unless of course there is a method of re-introduction. A dog from an area where they are vaccinated against it can still bring it back in (see above references).

And the chance is that domestic dogs have brought it back in. Seems that is one cause of the failure of the re-introduction of wolves in the park: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/1998/r98-091a.html

Biologists, however, suspect disease, predation, malnutrition, and parasites contributed to the high rate of pup mortality. Pathologists found parvovirus in the remains of one of a litter of four pups that all died during the summer of 1993

and even hit other places like Yellowstone and Ice Age Wilderness:

Only 22 of 69 wolf pups born in 2005 are still alive, and Yellowstone Park’s wolf project leader fears parvovirus, a disease of domestic dogs, as the cause. Some of the surviving pups will be captured this winter and tested to determine whether they have been exposed to parvovirus.

So if parvo was EVERYWHERE already, then they would all get it all the time, but only some get it. The guess would be from re-introduction.

And if it is wrong headed, it seems there is a lot of that out there:

For Isle Royal National Park:
The island's eastern timber wolves are in trouble—their numbers are in serious decline after the pack was exposed to a deadly strain of canine parvovirus. Parvovirus attacks the intestines' ability to absorb water, causing the wolves to die of dehydration. For this reason, dogs and other pets are strictly forbidden (even aboard boats) near this rugged yet fragile island because of the devastating effects of introducing foreign diseases and viruses.

And the Sierra Clubs cut on it can be found in this long piece:


DOMESTIC DOGS IN WILDLIFE HABITATS EFFECTS OF RECREATION ON ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE

http://www.montanatws.org/chapters/mt/PDF%20Files/8dogs.pdf

Or this article:
The Effect of Dogs On Wildlife http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html



From http://www.nps.gov/grsm/gsmsite/justforfun.html
Pets are allowed in campgrounds, picnic areas, parking areas, and along roads, but must be kept on a leash at all times. The leash must not exceed 6 feet in length. Pets are only allowed on two short walking paths--the Gatlinburg Trail and the Oconaluftee River Trail. Pets are not allowed on any other park trails. Pets should not be left unattended in vehicles or RVs.

You are right, could not find the GSMNP reason anywhere on line from here in Iraq. I only know what I was told at Treemont one day when some lady hikers were complaining to the ranger about how unfair it was to allow horses but not dogs in the back-country. Maybe he is right, maybe he just wanted to give a reason they couldn't keep arguing over (they did anyway). But here is what Joshua tree national park has to say on the subject: http://www.nps.gov/jotr/manage/dogs/dogs.html.
Note that they also do not allow dogs in the back country here but tell you a lot about what has been found out by studies. Here are some interesting points:


In a report on wildlife conditions in national parks in 1935, Wright and Thompson recommended that dogs not be brought into national parks or “at the very least” be kept on leash (1935, G. M. Wright and B. H. Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC). So the main recommendation was no for all national parks. The fall back had to be let some in but keep them on the leash. BUT...

Even leashed dogs have the potential for substantial negative effects on wildlife. Dogs are members of the family, Canidae, that includes wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Along with the family Felidae (lions, bobcats), Canidae species are first order predators and as such exert stress upon prey species. Prey animals are acutely aware of the presence of hunting canids. They become more alert and often take escape measures—running, freezing, burrowing, climbing, flying, or hiding—when they sense hunting canids near by. A wild animal may become used to the presence of a human or horse, but will always react to a leashed dog entering its territory as if it were a wild canid. Permitting dogs, even leashed dogs, onto trails is the same as introducing a large number of surrogate predators into the ecosystem. There are seasons and times of drought, limited forage, post-rut, extreme temperatures, pregnancy, lactation, or new-born when wildlife are at energy levels so marginal any disturbance that causes extra stress and uses precious energy will make the difference between life and death. It is a general tenet in the science of natural resource management that unnecessary stress to wildlife be reduced or eliminated in order to give animals an increased margin of survival. The National Park Service has addressed this issue by prohibiting visitors from chasing or harassing wildlife and by not allowing dogs on trails.

R. A. McArthur et al. (1982 – see C. Sime 1999) conducted human disturbance trials in which a person approached a group of bighorn sheep: alone from a road, from the road accompanied by a leashed dog, and from a ridge away from the road. The strongest reaction (milling, fleeing) occurred when the sheep saw a human with a leashed dog. There was no evidence of habituation in repeated trials. McArthur et al. (1982) concluded, “The presence of dogs on sheep range should be discouraged.”

This is what I also alluded to in post #147. But people think it is not their dog that is the problem.

Another great point they make, based on research:


Public lands managers have found that even where dogs on leash are permitted on trails, owners often allow their dogs to run free. In a survey conducted at Angeles National Forest, where dogs are allowed on trails as long as they are on a leash, 90 percent of the dogs observed on trails were off leash (Chester, 2003).

So while everyone claims to be a great owner with a leash, the observation by impartial third parties find that people obey leash rules like they observe speed limits.

And one last thing lest you think I am making all the stuff up about disease (since that was the point of the recent post):


Dogs can transmit a number of pathogens to humans and wildlife via feces, through blood-sucking insects, or directly to other species. Toxocaria can cause blindness in children. Parvovirus affects other canines, and was the source for wolf-pup mortality in Glacier National Park in the early 1990s. Muscle cysts (Sarcocystis spp.) affects ungulates such as deer and bighorn sheep. Leptospirosis is a bacterial disease that affects the kidneys and urinary tract of most mammal species. Parasites, such as ticks, keds, tapeworms, and fleas are well-known problems in dogs that can be passed to other animals, including humans. (Chester 2003).

SGT Rock
06-14-2006, 09:56
Apparently you didn't read everything I said about how I bring my dog hiking. As noted, I step way off the trail, I don't go to shelters and the whole point of the muzzle is that if anyone does get close there is an extra layer of protection. When I was talking about liability, it was related to the other owners who do not control their dogs and allow them to run right up to my dogs (who are in complete control) and think that everything will be just fine since their dogs are friendly. If I enjoy hiking with my dog and don't allow him to interact with other people, that's my business.

Actually it is everyone around you's buisness. But dog owners that have decided to bring their pets usually don't see how. And that is what I was talking about. You have decided to bring a dog with known anger issues and take percautions, but if you screw up, someone else gets to suffer. I know you think I am being dramatic about that right about now.


Now everyone has gotten onto another subject of disease and dogs. This is certainly something to consider but I would like to see some research that discusses the impact of the domestic canine on the wild animal population before I make a final judgement on that issue. From what I have read, the origins of the disease may be from wild animals (mink) or cats but it is not clear where canine parvo virus comes from (it didn't even show up until about 30 years ago). It may be a mutation of feline distemper.

Believe me, having done animal rescue for several years, I know how horrible this disease can be. We've heard of shelters losing whole puppy litters in 24-48 hours from Parvo. Of course, if we take this argument to the extreme (which I can imagine some of the people on this list will do) it might be argued that dogs shouldn't be allowed out of your house since there is still wildlife in the cities and towns. Not that this would still completely eradicate the spread of the disease since it can be transmitted easily on your shoes or other items of clothing that have had contact with infected dogs. Not such an easy thing for us to just say lets ban dogs from the AT because of this disease since that doesn't solve the problem. I'm not saying it wouldn't help but noone has proved to me yet that it would or wouldn't.

It is. But it needs hosts to keep it going. Unvaccinated animals die from it, then they cannot pass it along anymore. It lives in the ground for a while then dies off too. So it takes a population that activly has it and passes it. From your experience in pet rescue you probably see it in domesticated animal concentrations where vaccinations are not done and it runs through the population. A vacinated dog can still pass it back to the back country (see above studies).

So it looks like the National Park Service, the Sierra Club, and others interested in protecting wildlife think dogs on trails are a bad thing. Are they anti-dog, or pro wildlife?:-?

I was once a dog-hiker. I learned, I quit. I wish everyone would think past their love for their pet's company on the trail and think about it. There are other things that make it a bad idea past disease, predadation, and interactions with other hikers - like the pet's health, that has not even been addressed by this thread.

plydem
06-14-2006, 10:23
You have decided to bring a dog with known anger issues and take percautions, but if you screw up, someone else gets to suffer. I know you think I am being dramatic about that right about now.

No, I totally agree and don't think you are being dramatic. If I were to screw up and my dog hurt someone it's my fault and I would take responsibility for it. This could happen off the trail as well and there is no way anyone is going to tell me I can never walk my dog anywhere. This is why I am very careful and know what my dog can do.




So it looks like the National Park Service, the Sierra Club, and others interested in protecting wildlife think dogs on trails are a bad thing. Are they anti-dog, or pro wildlife?:-?

I agree. They would be pro-wildlife. I will have to think more on this. I don't know if I will end up being as strict as you about this but it is something to consider if I want to call myself a friend of nature.

Regarding your mention of pets health, I think that would mainly come into play for those that do extended hikes with their dogs. I'm not really part of that group. The longest I have ever gone out with my dogs is a brief overnight and only hiked five miles between both days. Anything beyond three or four miles in a stretch is too much for my dogs and I would be concerned about their health. They can be injured in any number of ways and it doesn't help that they are shepherds and are prone to hip problems (one already had a hip replacement).

Anyway, all of this is a lot to consider and I agree that all dog owners should think long and hard about the effect their pets have on the environment. This goes far beyond simple bad interaction with other hikers and is a social issue that may be hard to get across because of people's love of spending time with their dogs.

Thanks Sgt. Rock for bringing this issue up. It's going to make for some serious discussion in my household.

Alligator
06-14-2006, 12:45
I own a couple now and have had lots of them :D

But anyway...
I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that dog owners are less than honest in what they say.

But anyway...

When you said this.


Now, imagine all the domesticated dogs, immune to the disease, spreading it along the trail and all points adjacent to the trail along it, creating an inisial in-road of parvo for exposing animals along the trail. Ever see an animal die from parvo - not pretty at all.

I interpreted that as the you were saying the virus was present, internally, beyond infectious stage. Like being HIV + but not having full blown AIDS. Given the following statements, I thought carrier (and vector) was special terminology refering to that condition. That's usually how I hear it used. My bad if you really weren't using it that way.

http://www.2ndchance.info/parvo.htm

Recovered dogs are probably immune for life. Because of the strong immunity that follows infection, carrier dogs do not exist. htttp://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html (http://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html)

Chronic "carriers" are not know to exist as in other virus disease.
The point I am driving at is that while infectious dogs do pass the virus "in spades", after the disease runs it's course, the only way for the dog to carry it is to come into contact with contaminated feces. Physically. Lots of animals can be carriers. A flea, a bird, a cat, a human being anything that comes into contact with the feces.



Except that if you figure that in 1978 when it did roll through and kill off animals, then give it about 9 months or so to die off on it's own without a host, that the area should be fairly free for animals that didn't die from it to come back. Unless of course there is a method of re-introduction. A dog from an area where they are vaccinated against it can still bring it back in (see above references).

And the chance is that domestic dogs have brought it back in. Seems that is one cause of the failure of the re-introduction of wolves in the park: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/1998/r98-091a.htmlThe assumption you are making is that a vaccinated dog will reintroduce it. Given the other host species in the park and the persistance rate it is more likely IMO that the parvo would not die off, but just cycle around. All you need is a shorter than 9 month reproductive cycle or staggered reproduction from two host species. Your assumption is far from absolute.



from the immediate link above, expanded.

Project biologists are not certain what caused all the pup mortality. Newborn pups are too small to wear the radio-tracking collars used to monitor adult red wolves, so only a few pup carcasses could be located and examined.

Biologists, however, suspect disease, predation, malnutrition, and parasites contributed to the high rate of pup mortality. Pathologists found parvovirus in the remains of one of a litter of four pups that all died during the summer of 1993 and found the carcass of another pup from a separate litter killed by coyotes that same year. Biologists also have documented malnutrition and heavy infestations of internal and external parasites in pups and adults that have been captured.
This expanded quote shows that parvo was only one of many suggested causes of pup death.


The virus does not live forever without a host. But it does persist for up to nine months. Other hosts are coyotes, foxes, and bears. Given the persistence and virulence of the disease it is completely reasonable to assume that parvo is being hosted in these species, as well as feral dogs. It's not so deadly that some animals don't survive it. The disease is tracked by antibodies. You can only have antibodies if you live. Given it's prevalence in the domesticated dog world, with dog-to-dog transmission, it is not far out to consider that parvo will continue to persist through wolf-to-wolf transmission, fox-to-fox tansmission, coyote-to-coyote transmission, coyote-to-basically everything else.

Wildlife biologists believe that Yellowstone's wolves have already had outbreaks twice.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0117_060117_yellowstone_wolf_2.html
copied from a blog, but it was a NYT article
http://naturelit.blogspot.com/2006/01/wolves.html


Isolated pockets of non-infected canids will get the virus. There are too many non vaccinated canids out there. But I respect the idea of a ban for the Island Royale population mentioned.


Disease is a natural and usually very unavoidable fact of life for wildlife.


This article,
DOMESTIC DOGS IN WILDLIFE HABITATS EFFECTS OF RECREATION ON ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE
http://www.montanatws.org/chapters/mt/PDF%20Files/8dogs.pdf
provides recommendations, but nothing as stringent as an outright backcountry ban.


This article
The Effect of Dogs On Wildlife
http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html
is about a small ecological reserve. The author walks his/her dog elsewhere. Personally, I don't have a problem with the restriction at that reserve. Key words are ecological reserve not park.

I'd be more moved by the harassment issues if you called for a ban on hunting. Start there, then work backwards, as that's particularly tough on the wildlife:D .

SGT Rock
06-14-2006, 12:52
Yes it is, but this isn't a hunting site.

Ridge
06-14-2006, 13:13
[quote=Alligator] .......BSP from what I have read, has never allowed dogs....... /quote]

"After much thought and many years of the public using the Park with their pets"

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/thru-hiking.html


This was posted earlier, Refer to your post #181

SGT Rock
06-14-2006, 13:17
I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that dog owners are less than honest in what they say.

I am only saying some are less than honest with themselves in how they view their dog's impact on the environment and other people.:eek:



But anyway...

When you said this.

I interpreted that as the you were saying the virus was present, internally, beyond infectious stage. Like being HIV + but not having full blown AIDS. Given the following statements, I thought carrier (and vector) was special terminology referring to that condition. That's usually how I hear it used. My bad if you really weren't using it that way.
Naw, just my uneducated use of the wrong term. Forgive me if I didn't use the doctrinally correct term.


http://www.2ndchance.info/parvo.htm
htttp://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html (http://www.all-creatures.com/456077.html)
The point I am driving at is that while infectious dogs do pass the virus "in spades", after the disease runs it's course, the only way for the dog to carry it is to come into contact with contaminated feces. Physically. Lots of animals can be carriers. A flea, a bird, a cat, a human being anything that comes into contact with the feces.

Yes that is true, but the fact is that dogs do not pick it up anywhere, they pick it up in hot spots just like any other infection. A dog that has the disease can carry it and produce a lot of it on the trail without showing symptoms as shown in previous references. So a hiker may have a dog that is carrying the disease without showing symptoms and inadvertently pass it on at a much higher concentration than a bird would that got some on his feet.


The assumption you are making is that a vaccinated dog will reintroduce it. Given the other host species in the park and the persistence rate it is more likely IMO that the parvo would not die off, but just cycle around. All you need is a shorter than 9 month reproductive cycle or staggered reproduction from two host species. Your assumption is far from absolute.
Yes is is far from absolute, but apparently in situations like the Royal Isle there was an infection, they banned dogs, and then they have recovered. Would this not suggest that there is at least some validity to the strategy?




from the immediate link above, expanded.
This expanded quote shows that parvo was only one of many suggested causes of pup death.


The virus does not live forever without a host. But it does persist for up to nine months. Other hosts are coyotes, foxes, and bears. Given the persistence and virulence of the disease it is completely reasonable to assume that parvo is being hosted in these species, as well as feral dogs. It's not so deadly that some animals don't survive it. The disease is tracked by antibodies. You can only have antibodies if you live. Given it's prevalence in the domesticated dog world, with dog-to-dog transmission, it is not far out to consider that parvo will continue to persist through wolf-to-wolf transmission, fox-to-fox transmission, coyote-to-coyote transmission, coyote-to-basically everything else.


Yes true, but again, do we assume that these are passing it without proof of it's existence in the wild? Lets look at it this way: If those pups had enough concentration to die from it, wouldn't there be enough to kill other pups in the backwoods? If there was enough, then with an 80% mortality rate one could assume that there would be a lot of dead pups. But there are not. There are some and they got it somehow other than by contact with others in their group which they have continuous contact with.





Wildlife biologists believe that Yellowstone's wolves have already had outbreaks twice.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0117_060117_yellowstone_wolf_2.html
copied from a blog, but it was a NYT article
http://naturelit.blogspot.com/2006/01/wolves.html


Isolated pockets of non-infected canids will get the virus. There are too many non vaccinated canids out there. But I respect the idea of a ban for the Island Royale population mentioned.

If it got to that ecosystem and was later "flushed out" so to speak, then why could that not work in other areas with similar control measures. Is the answer it may, but it isn't worth the extra effort? Birds, people, and probably even some animals could still make it to this island, but yet the control measure worked. Also, looking at Joshua Tree, GSMNP, BSP, and other areas, they seem to be following the same idea. Are they all wrong?




Disease is a natural and usually very unavoidable fact of life for wildlife.


This article,
DOMESTIC DOGS IN WILDLIFE HABITATS EFFECTS OF RECREATION ON ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE
http://www.montanatws.org/chapters/mt/PDF%20Files/8dogs.pdf
provides recommendations, but nothing as stringent as an outright backcountry ban.



But the NPS service seems to think it is a good idea - at least that is what their scientists said. I imagine the pressure to let dogs in was put on them back when they made that recommendation by animal lovers.




This article







The Effect of Dogs On Wildlife

http://tchester.org/srp/lists/dogs.html

is about a small ecological reserve. The author walks his/her dog elsewhere. Personally, I don't have a problem with the restriction at that reserve. Key words are ecological reserve not park.






Why not? Some of these parks are also consider reserves, an example is the Standing Indian Park which is also a bear reserve. Wouldn't that same protection that applies to the one reserve also apply to the other since bears are canids?




I'd be more moved by the harassment issues if you called for a ban on hunting. Start there, then work backwards, as that's particularly tough on the wildlife:D .


I agree, I hate hunting with dogs. I have seen some pretty bad stuff. But this isn't a hunting site, it is a hiking site and we are talking to hikers about how they and their pets impact animals.


And given that, even with the study quoted by me earlier which showed that a dog on a leash is just as bad to the animals as a hunting dog is, I guess you then agree that even on a leash a dog ain't a good idea for animals in the backcountry. Or does that just apply to sheep? :rolleyes:

Alligator
06-14-2006, 13:26
[quote=Alligator] .......BSP from what I have read, has never allowed dogs......./quote]

"After much thought and many years of the public using the Park with their pets"

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/thru-hiking.html


This was posted earlier, Refer to your post #181OK, I missed that clause. Given Gov. Baxter's generosity, I have no problem with his desire to not have pets in the park, nor any of the other regulations implemented as a result of his wishes for that matter.

Jaybird
06-14-2006, 13:58
Dogs.....mmmmmmmmmmmm....very Tasty meat!:D

Alligator
06-14-2006, 14:47
Yes that is true, but the fact is that dogs do not pick it up anywhere, they pick it up in hot spots just like any other infection. A dog that has the disease can carry it and produce a lot of it on the trail without showing symptoms as shown in previous references. So a hiker may have a dog that is carrying the disease without showing symptoms and inadvertently pass it on at a much higher concentration than a bird would that got some on his feet.
Given the hard outcomes of the disease, dogs that don't show infection are likely rare animals. Further, dog owners should have their dogs vaccinated for parvo, so I suspect that it's an even more rare case. Honestly, do you feel that vaccinated, unsymptomatic hiker dogs are going to be major infectious agents? Minor agents? Bit players?

There are quotes out there saying that scientists feel that parvo will not have a signficant impact on the Yellowstone wolf population. Those are just opinion pieces though.


Yes is is far from absolute, but apparently in situations like the Royal Isle there was an infection, they banned dogs, and then they have recovered. Would this not suggest that there is at least some validity to the strategy?
It's an island right? Very big difference. Water is a very effective ecological barrier. Any other islands you want to put on the list, go ahead.



Yes true, but again, do we assume that these are passing it without proof of it's existence in the wild? Lets look at it this way: If those pups had enough concentration to die from it, wouldn't there be enough to kill other pups in the backwoods? If there was enough, then with an 80% mortality rate one could assume that there would be a lot of dead pups. But there are not. There are some and they got it somehow other than by contact with others in their group which they have continuous contact with.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. All I can say is that I wouldn't draw much information from one pup in one litter of four. Momma does provide immunity through milk, maybe the pup was the runt.




If it got to that ecosystem and was later "flushed out" so to speak, then why could that not work in other areas with similar control measures. Is the answer it may, but it isn't worth the extra effort? Birds, people, and probably even some animals could still make it to this island, but yet the control measure worked. No, the answer is that it's an island.



Also, looking at Joshua Tree, GSMNP, BSP, and other areas, they seem to be following the same idea. Are they all wrong?Antibody level data from canids at non-edge locations from some of these would confirm or refute both our hypotheses. GSMNP is out, they let dogs in the campgrounds and on the roads.

But the NPS service seems to think it is a good idea - at least that is what their scientists said. I imagine the pressure to let dogs in was put on them back when they made that recommendation by animal lovers.I can't say, I don't have enough of a history of this decision making process. When it was decided, when it was implemented, why, when it was changed and why.



Why not? Some of these parks are also consider reserves, an example is the Standing Indian Park which is also a bear reserve. Wouldn't that same protection that applies to the one reserve also apply to the other since bears are canids?
If it's a reserve and a park, feel free to use the more stringent guidelines. It's good to have control sites.


I agree, I hate hunting with dogs. I have seen some pretty bad stuff. But this isn't a hunting site, it is a hiking site and we are talking to hikers about how they and their pets impact animals.



And given that, even with the study quoted by me earlier which showed that a dog on a leash is just as bad to the animals as a hunting dog is, I guess you then agree that even on a leash a dog ain't a good idea for animals in the backcountry. Or does that just apply to sheep? :rolleyes:


This is an AT site. Are there a lot of bighorn sheep on the AT? Seriously, it does just apply to bighorn sheep.


I wasn't talking about hunting dogs, I was talking about hunting, the whole shabang. Which is an issue given the recommendations to wear blaze orange. I think that is a much bigger issue, more stress than a leashed dog.


People and dogs have coexisted for many thousands of years. It's natural for both to be in the woods. If you can get people to not allow their dogs to chase and keep them on their leash, that would be a reasonable compromise. You were saying something about not really wanting it all. Honestly it probably is a little stressful for some of the animals but I suspect no animals have gone extinct from a guy walking by with his dog repeatedly. I'll bet you could put a whole train of guys walking their dogs down the trail and not a rabbit would keel over and die. You might freak the deer out at night though if everyone turned on their headlamps:D . This is what I consider an overboard, extremist position. If you are that concerned, ban hunting. Some animals sure as hell have gotten the **** blown out of them.

[I should toss in a bone. Sea turtle nesting sites. Maybe nest sites dependent on linear locations would be heavily impacted by people walking their dogs. Now if you want to make recommendations in regard to endangered/threatened species I'll compromise some more.]

Heater
06-14-2006, 15:21
No, I totally agree and don't think you are being dramatic. If I were to screw up and my dog hurt someone it's my fault and I would take responsibility for it.

You gonna carry them piggyback up the trail and to the summit of Katahdin?

plydem
06-14-2006, 15:30
You gonna carry them piggyback up the trail and to the summit of Katahdin?

You missed the rest of my post that explained that I don't take my dogs out for more than three or four miles. I would never subject them to a strenuous hike up a mountain or a very long hike. I certainly wouldn't take my dog on a thru-hike. That's like subjecting them to something akin to the Bataan Death March.

SGT Rock
06-14-2006, 15:35
I think he meant the thru-hiker who would be injured thus missing the chance to finish his or her hike. Not your dogs.

Heater
06-14-2006, 15:42
You missed the rest of my post that explained that I don't take my dogs out for more than three or four miles. I would never subject them to a strenuous hike up a mountain or a very long hike. I certainly wouldn't take my dog on a thru-hike. That's like subjecting them to something akin to the Bataan Death March.

No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter the lenght or your hike.
You are going home at the end of the day and back to work on Monday.

If your dog bites and rips a tendon or causes another injury that will end a thru-hikers hike, will you be willing take 6 months off of work, without pay, to carry them down the trail. That would be the only way that I see that you could "take responsibility" like you said you would. Think about the real costs incurred here.

plydem
06-14-2006, 15:44
I think he meant the thru-hiker who would be injured thus missing the chance to finish his or her hike. Not your dogs.

In the words of Cartman from Southpark: "Ohhh, rainbows!"

OK, well I don't know that I would agree to carrying them up Katahdin (altohugh I do love that climb!) but I would certainly do whatever I could to compensate the individual (within reason). Anyway, that's why my dog wears the muzzle - so he can't injure someone if by some chance I do screw up.

Ridge
06-14-2006, 15:58
No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter the lenght or your hike.
You are going home at the end of the day and back to work on Monday.

If your dog bites and rips a tendon or causes another injury that will end a thru-hikers hike, will you be willing take 6 months off of work, without pay, to carry them down the trail. That would be the only way that I see that you could "take responsibility" like you said you would. Think about the real costs incurred here.

Could you imagine a dog attack ending 80 year old Earl Shaffer's historic last thru-hike. His last hike inspired many, especially those who think they're too old to do it. It would be a travesty for a Sunday stroll with an unleashed dog ending a thru-hike (for any hiker) that took years of planning and anticipation in just a flash.

Heater
06-14-2006, 16:17
In the words of Cartman from Southpark: "Ohhh, rainbows!"

OK, well I don't know that I would agree to carrying them up Katahdin (altohugh I do love that climb!) but I would certainly do whatever I could to compensate the individual (within reason). Anyway, that's why my dog wears the muzzle - so he can't injure someone if by some chance I do screw up.

Within reason? To you? :rolleyes:

How do you compensate for causing someone's lost dreams?

Or,

Person makes, say 40K a year and takes a leave of absence to hike the trail. Compensation = $20K (6 months wages) repaid, medical bills incurred and living expenses during recovery sound reasonable? Sounds reasonable to me!

You said you hike with 2 dogs both leashed. One gentle dog and another vicous muzzled dog. What happes if either one of those dogs get off their leash. It could happen. The "gentle" one could bite someone. Happens all the time. The viscous one could rush someone, cause a fall and break a limb. You have ended a hike and a dream. Stuff happens, right.

How will you compensate?

plydem
06-14-2006, 16:34
Within reason? To you? :rolleyes:

How do you compensate for causing someone's lost dreams?

You said you hike with 2 dogs both leashed. One gentle dog and another vicous muzzled dog. What happes if either one of those dogs get off their leash. It could happen. The "gentle" one could bite someone. Happens all the time. The viscous one could rush someone, cause a fall and break a limb. You have ended a hike and a dream. Stuff happens, right.

How will you compensate?

So, now we're talking about what it costs to pay for someone's lost dreams? Look, I think I have stated that I would do whatever is reasonable as compensation if someone got hurt due to my negligence but how many court cases have you heard about where someone sues and wins damages for "lost dreams"? That's ridiculous.

Lots of things can happen on a hike. If you fall and break your leg because of a loose log that is part of a water break on a trail maintained by a local club, are you going to expect the local club to pay for your "lost dream" of finishing the AT? Are you going to sue them for damages? Obviously, you couldn't win that case. Stuff happens, right?

Let's get back to reality.

LostInSpace
06-14-2006, 16:49
So, now we're talking about what it costs to pay for someone's lost dreams? Look, I think I have stated that I would do whatever is reasonable as compensation if someone got hurt due to my negligence but how many court cases have you heard about where someone sues and wins damages for "lost dreams"? That's ridiculous.

Lots of things can happen on a hike. If you fall and break your leg because of a loose log that is part of a water break on a trail maintained by a local club, are you going to expect the local club to pay for your "lost dream" of finishing the AT? Are you going to sue them for damages? Obviously, you couldn't win that case. Stuff happens, right?

Let's get back to reality.

A "loose log" probably is not contributory negligence, but a "loose dog" probably is.

Heater
06-15-2006, 00:16
So, now we're talking about what it costs to pay for someone's lost dreams?

No. You are missing the point, again.


Look, I think I have stated that I would do whatever is reasonable as compensation if someone got hurt due to my negligence but how many court cases have you heard about where someone sues and wins damages for "lost dreams"? That's ridiculous.

Of course it is. (ridiculous) You cannot "pay for" or "compensate for" screwing up someone's dream.

All YOU can do is take measures to assure that it doesn't happen. That is something that you do not seem willing to do considering all the rationalization and diversions to are employing in this thread.



Lots of things can happen on a hike. If you fall and break your leg because of a loose log that is part of a water break on a trail maintained by a local club, are you going to expect the local club to pay for your "lost dream" of finishing the AT?

Is this the argument you will bring to court when someone sues you after one of your dogs accidently serious of even life threatening injuries? Good luck! :rolleyes:


Are you going to sue them for damages? Obviously, you couldn't win that case. Stuff happens, right?



Back to the question. I'll simplify.

You said you would compensate.

A hiker leaves his $45K a year job to fulfill his or her lifelong dream of hiking the AT. Hiker needs to be back to work, ready to work in 6 months. Your dog attacks and seriously injurs the hiker, ends the hike and crushes the dream.

The question... How would you compensate?




Let's get back to reality.

OK. Reality.

Your dog attacks me. A minimum of three things that will happen are:


The dog will be euthanized.
You will go to court.
You will pay for medical bills and any lost wages, etc... That would probably be in the $5K and would still not compensate me for my losses.That's reality. ;)

Ridge
06-15-2006, 00:31
Look, there isn't any amount of money in this world that can pay for the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime adventure like a thru-hike of the AT, so I would stop trying. The best thing to do is get on WB and Bitch about it like I have. I could have easily contracted Rabies and died before Hot Springs, after being bitten, but I didn't. So, I bitch and moan about dogs to try and educate those that do carry them that they could screw up someones life. I get mad every time I think about the way it made me feel.

Ridge
06-15-2006, 00:40
........
Your dog attacks me. A minimum of three things that will happen are:


The dog will be euthanized.
You will go to court.
You will pay for medical bills and any lost wages, etc... That would probably be in the $5K and would still not compensate me for my losses.That's reality. ;)



Since it's not the dogs fault, lets vote to euthanize the owner. Show of hands please..... OK, you can put your hands down now.

Heater
06-15-2006, 00:52
Since it's not the dogs fault, lets vote to euthanize the owner. Show of hands please..... OK, you can put your hands down now.

No, It's not the dogs fault. Unfortunately, the dog would be euthanized anyway.

BTW... I usually stay out of the arguements about dogs. This guy just popped in and came on so strong that I responded. I think he might be a troll. He probably doesn't even have a dog. :-?

ed bell
06-15-2006, 00:54
Muzzle???? Wow I have never seen that on a dog on any trail. I agree with Austexs

Ridge
06-15-2006, 01:05
Muzzle???? Wow I have never seen that on a dog on any trail. I agree with Austexs

I have thousands of trail-miles, and I haven't either. I also have seen very few dogs that where leashed, I would guess 10%, and thats being charitable. I hope one day, after dogs are banned from the AT, that the arguments here will be about hikers faking blindness so they could get their mutt on the AT. There already are some using bogus reasons and doctor statements to take dogs thru the GSMNP.

Nean
06-15-2006, 01:35
I have thousands of trail-miles,

I have been bit 3 times myself Ridge. I was upset when it happened, but I got over it.:) Most dogs I like on the trail. In dog / human terms it seems that out of 50 of each, 1 dog per 3 humans would be better off elsewhere. That is nothing more than a thought. :o
Funny story: I saw MinnisotaSmith 3x this year and each time he was surrounded by dogs! He's a dog magnet :eek: and he never got upset. I figure he is probably a decent guy afterall.;)

Heater
06-15-2006, 01:44
Funny story: I saw MinnisotaSmith 3x this year and each time he was surrounded by dogs! He's a dog magnet :eek: and he never got upset. I figure he is probably a decent guy afterall.;)

"Dog Magnet" That is funny! :D

I hope MS makes it and Flips SOBO. :) That'd be something.

Ridge
06-15-2006, 01:54
.....
Funny story: I saw MinnisotaSmith 3x this year and each time he was surrounded by dogs! He's a dog magnet :eek: ........

Could he be in Heat?

Ridge
06-15-2006, 01:57
I have been bit 3 times myself Ridge. I was upset when it happened, but I got over it.:) Most dogs I like on the trail......

Doesn't it take about 3 bites from a vampire before the victim joins up with the Vampire? Have you gone to the dogs? Just teasing.

plydem
06-15-2006, 08:54
No. You are missing the point, again.

Of course it is. (ridiculous) You cannot "pay for" or "compensate for" screwing up someone's dream.

All YOU can do is take measures to assure that it doesn't happen. That is something that you do not seem willing to do considering all the rationalization and diversions to are employing in this thread.

OK. Reality.

Your dog attacks me. A minimum of three things that will happen are:


The dog will be euthanized.
You will go to court.
You will pay for medical bills and any lost wages, etc... That would probably be in the $5K and would still not compensate me for my losses.That's reality. ;)

So, again it's apparent that you aren't reading what I have written. My dogs are on-leash, under control with a gentle leader and the one with fear agression is muzzled. Stop trying to lump me in with the people who you have encountered that don't do anything to control their dogs.

You want to see reality - try standing in my shoes for a while. I have been rescuing dogs for five years and can't tell you how many times I have had to sit with a dog at the vet and hold it while the vet puts it down for the very same reasons you are talking about. Why do you think I am very careful with my dogs? Is it the dogs fault? No, but they have to suffer for our mistakes anyway and I would be prepared to do that if my dog hurt somebody. Does that mean I can help you with your dream? No, but you can't replace my dog either. You don't know how hard it is to not hunt down the a-hole who sold my dog to the abusive owner and then the abusive owner and do them some serious damage.

Just because my dog has issues, is it any reason to deprive him of a life he can enjoy? I don't think so and I don't but I take precautions. The reason none of you have seen a dog out there with a muzzle is because all those people don't understand what their dog can do and therefore just allow them to roam free and bite people.

Yes, I come on strong but that's beacuse of all the others who have come on just as strong trying to tell me I can't bring my family member with me when I go hiking. It's also because of my background in dog rescue and the disgusting remarks I have seen leveled at dogs on this forum.

Oh, and yes I do have dogs. Attached are pictures of one enjoying a short overnight on the AT in CT and the other having fun in the backyard playing fetch in the snow.

I originally came on this site to learn about what it's like to thru-hike in preparation for mine and unfortunately latched onto this discussion thread. The only good thing about it and some of the other similar ones is that there actually have been some constructive discussions about the impact of dogs on the environment that do have me thinking about whether or not I will continue to hike with my dogs or at the very least how I hike with my dogs.

Alligator
06-15-2006, 10:33
We should also have a psych test at the trailhead to make sure people have no psychologial issues that maybe/might/snowballs chance in hell affect some special person's hike;) . Maybe I could get grandfathered:-? .

Anyway, I'm adding these three articles to the discussion. All three files are in the .zip file.

In a survey of coyotes at Yellowstone National Park over a period of four years, 1989-1993, 100% of the adults>2yrs, 100% of the yearlings (12-24 months), and 100% of the pups (4-12 months) tested positive for CPV (parvo) antibodies(Gese et al. 1997). One of the interesting points to this article is that it was conducted prior to the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. Subsequently, there have been two suspected parvo outbreaks in the reintroduced wolf population. The sources of the parvo infection have not been identified (I doubt ever). Given the hurting the wolves put on the coyotes upon reintroduction (wolves kill coyotes), I know where my bets are.

In Glacier National Park, in five tested years, the prevalence of parvo antibodies was found to be 0 in one year, and 50+% the remaining years(Johnson et al. 1994). This article also cites rates for some other locations: Alaska 31% (Zarnke and Ballard 1987) and Minnesota 75% (Goyal et al. 1986).

In wild Minnesota populations, the percentage of wolves with the CPV antibodies ranged from 13-95% over a 12 year period. (Mech and Goyal 1993).

Rain Man
06-15-2006, 10:54
Could he be in Heat?

Or maybe he just SMELLS like it?!!! LOL

Rain:sunMan

.

Heater
06-15-2006, 11:04
So, again it's apparent that you aren't reading what I have written. My dogs are on-leash, under control with a gentle leader and the one with fear agression is muzzled. Stop trying to lump me in with the people who you have encountered that don't do anything to control their dogs.

I know exactly what you said. I am asking one simple question.
(which you convieniently snipped from the quote in your response.)
That's all! You don't want to answer, fine! Just say so.

You admitted it could happen.

In post #211 you said “If I were to screw up and my dog hurt someone it's my fault and I would take responsibility for it.

Again. Here is the simple question.

A hiker leaves his $45K a year job to fulfill his or her lifelong dream of hiking the AT. Hiker needs to be back to work, ready to work in 6 months. Your dog attacks and seriously injures the hiker, ends the hike and crushes the dream.

The question... How would you compensate?

plydem
06-15-2006, 11:12
Anyway, I'm adding these three articles to the discussion. All three files are in the .zip file...

Very interested reading, Alligator. This goes along with the discussion on the leashed or not poll and is why I stated I was reconsidering if or at least how I hike with my dogs. I also found the discussion about the coyotes already having CPV very interesting but of course they never really speculate much on why.

I agree that the wolves probably got it from the coyotes to some extent but the other articles speculate that it could have come from both sides (coyotes and dogs). I guess the question they really need to answer is "How did the coyotes get it?" Of course, since noone seems to know exactly where the virus came from in the first place (there is alot of speculation but nothing definitive) how do we proceed? Especially considering the point made that the wolf populations still increased even with the prevalance of CPV. Of course, they also said that CPV mortality basically replaced mortality due to starvation in pups.

Hmmmm. Lots of research to do and things to think about.

plydem
06-15-2006, 11:20
I know exactly what you said. I am asking one simple question.
(which you convieniently snipped from the quote in your response.)
That's all! You don't want to answer, fine! Just say so.

You admitted it could happen.

In post #211 you said “If I were to screw up and my dog hurt someone it's my fault and I would take responsibility for it.

Again. Here is the simple question.

A hiker leaves his $45K a year job to fulfill his or her lifelong dream of hiking the AT. Hiker needs to be back to work, ready to work in 6 months. Your dog attacks and seriously injures the hiker, ends the hike and crushes the dream.

The question... How would you compensate?


The simple answer is (and I think you already know this) is that there is no way I could fully compensate anyone for the opportunity loss and there is no easy way to put a monetary value on it either. I understand that but we are talking about if's and maybe's and all you can ever do in this world is minimize risks, not get rid of them. That's why I mentioned the possibility of falling on a loose log having the same effect. That's also why I try to minimize the impact my dogs have on other hikers. However, this isn't reason enough for me to leave them home. You can rail and cry all you want about it but they are to me like your kids (if you were to have any) are to you. They are my family and I don't like to leave them out of the fun.

Ridge
06-15-2006, 11:26
....... However, this isn't reason enough for me to leave them home. You can rail and cry all you want about it but they are to me like your kids (if you were to have any) are to you. They are my family and I don't like to leave them out of the fun.


By leaving the animal at home you might be saving a litter of wild animals, check out the Yellowstone wolf situation where most of the recent litters have died from the parvovirus. QUESTION: DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE WILDLIFE? Is your dog better than any other dog and couldn't possibly do anything to harm wildlife or anybody?

plydem
06-15-2006, 11:40
By leaving the animal at home you might be saving a litter of wild animals, check out the Yellowstone wolf situation where most of the recent litters have died from the parvovirus. QUESTION: DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE WILDLIFE? Is your dog better than any other dog and couldn't possibly do anything to harm wildlife or anybody?

Look at post #227. Yes, these are reasons for me to think about leaving my dog at home or at least changing the way I hike with my dog. I read all of the things that people submitted about the effect on wildlife, whether it be disease or just the fear of predatory animals. There is still some research I need to do on that subject and I also need to talk to my vet about some of this.

It isn't completely clear from the research presented that my specific dogs would spread the virus. In fact, some of the research indicates that the wolves in Yellowstone could have just as easily gotten CPV from the coyotes. Of course, they don't seem to know where the coyotes got it and noone seems to know for sure where CPV came from in the first place.

Anyway, like I said, more research and consideration will be put into this and this forum isn't going to answer all of my questions. Unless of course you all are experts in all of the necessary subjects (disease transmission, canine diseases, wildlife susceptability, etc.).

Heater
06-15-2006, 12:01
The simple answer is (and I think you already know this) is that there is no way I could fully compensate anyone for the opportunity loss and there is no easy way to put a monetary value on it either.

There isn't any way and that is just one of the reasons they should be left at home.



I understand that but we are talking about if's and maybe's and all you can ever do in this world is minimize risks, not get rid of them.
That's why I mentioned the possibility of falling on a loose log having the same effect. That's also why I try to minimize the impact my dogs have on other hikers. However, this isn't reason enough for me to leave them home. You can rail and cry all you want about it but they are to me like your kids (if you were to have any) are to you. They are my family and I don't like to leave them out of the fun.


Taking them to a crowded park or hiking trail is not minimizing the risks.
I know being anywhere around an animal that requires a muzzle would not make for a pleasurable day or evening. If you wanna ruin everyone's day so you can have a wonderful day with your "kids", I cannot stop you. It just seems to be a little bit selfish and inconsiderate to me.

I think that is all I am going to say about this.

Have a nice "fun" day:sun

plydem
06-15-2006, 12:14
Taking them to a crowded park or hiking trail is not minimizing the risks. I know being anywhere around an animal that requires a muzzle would not make for a pleasurable day or evening. If you wanna ruin everyone's day so you can have a wonderful day with your "kids", I cannot stop you. It just seems to be a little bit selfish and inconsiderate to me.

I think that is all I am going to say about this.

Have a nice "fun" day:sun

I never bring my dog to a crowded park. That's not fun for anybody, even him, because he would be under constant stress due to his fear issues. If I go somewhere and there are alot of people, I leave. Actually, he isn't really reactive so much to people anymore. He mostly reacts to other dogs. Would you rather I brought him without his muzzle? He is much calmer with the muzzle on and it's a visual cue to people that he might not be friendly.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to dis-agree. I wonder if you would think it was selfish and inconsiderate if someone brought their autistic child to a park or out hiking. They can be disruptive but don't they deserve to have the opportunity to enjoy the out doors at the possible expense of a few minutes of someone else's enjoyment?

Ridge
06-15-2006, 12:21
I never bring my dog to a crowded park. That's not fun for anybody, even him, because he would be under constant stress due to his fear issues. If I go somewhere and there are alot of people, I leave. ......

OK, lets say you and your dog are one in a million. What about the other 999,999 hikers with dogs?

plydem
06-15-2006, 13:02
OK, lets say you and your dog are one in a million. What about the other 999,999 hikers with dogs?

I totally agree that the vast majority of dog owners don't follow the rules and don't consider how their actions and the actions of their dogs affect those around them and the environment. The mission of the rescue group I work with is education. We try and educate people about the importance of keeping your dog on a leash when outside a secure fenced area, general animal behavior and do our best to make sure that even if they leave and don't adopt a dog from us that they consider all of the responsibility that goes aloong with owning a dog wherever they adopt.

Education can work and it has to some extent. I think the message the ASPCA and HSUS has been trying to convey about spay/neuter has increased the number of dogs that are fixed. It's definitely not 100% and I doubt it will ever come close. But, we have to continue to educating and reinforcing these things, just like with the education that the ATC does, to get as close as possible to the world we would like to see.

I for one will continue to educate myself and will do my best when I am hiking to educate others about dogs and the trail/environment.

Ridge
06-15-2006, 13:12
.........I for one will continue to educate myself and will do my best when I am hiking to educate others about dogs and the trail/environment.

Can you teach the dogs to use the Latrine, and to stop peeing on all the trailside vegetation. Even if you could, I still don't believe the GSMNP or Baxter SP is going to reverse its rules of "NO DOGS ALLOWED" because of the parasites and parvo dangers to wildlife the dogs spread.

Heater
06-15-2006, 13:13
I wonder if you would think it was selfish and inconsiderate if someone brought their autistic child to a park or out hiking. They can be disruptive but don't they deserve to have the opportunity to enjoy the out doors at the possible expense of a few minutes of someone else's enjoyment?

Uhmmm... OK.

I said I was done but...

I have an Autistic cousin that is now a full grown women, works retail and, mostly provides for herself. I may be called upon to provide assistance if I outlive her parents. I have an autistic 8 year old boy sitting no more than 15 feet from me at this very moment that I care for. Sure, they have or have had their times when they were/are a handful. Especially my cousin.

Neither one of them has required a muzzle when I have had them "outdoors." The 8 year old is very happy and pleasant to others at the park. You wouldn't even know of his issues.

For you to use this comparison, to go to these ridiculous extremes, to try and justfy you position sickens me.

Please go and *** yself.

GOOBYE, Azzzhle :mad:

Heater
06-15-2006, 13:33
Admin. Sorry for the last two lines of my post. Please feel free to edit them if you choose. This is the first time I have done something like that and I need to sign up so I can edit myself if it should ever happen again.

Ridge
06-15-2006, 13:41
Admin. Sorry for the last two lines of my post. Please feel free to edit them if you choose. This is the first time I have done something like that and I need to sign up so I can edit myself if it should ever happen again.

Maybe "plydem" should have edited his post, not you.

plydem
06-15-2006, 13:44
I would also like to apologize if I have been considered to go over an edge. I certainly didn't intend to make it sound like I have something against Autistic people (my best friend's daughter has Angelman's Syndrome which is very similar to Autism). I was simply trying to make a point and reacting to what I felt was a personal attack.

As you will see from my other posts, I am very passionate when it comes to dogs in general and my dogs in particular (again, they are my family). Alot of people here are passionate about the AT and I have been listening to what has been said regarding the spread of disease with regards to dogs. Like I said, I want to research this and discuss it with my vet to understand it better.

Heater
06-15-2006, 14:27
plydem and I have PMed each other.

All is good. Please let it drop.

I think I should log off for a while as I have been a little on edge. :-?

Seeya.

Alligator
06-15-2006, 14:29
...

I think I should log off for a while as I have been a little on edge. :-?

Seeya.If you get the shakes, try staring out the window at the green grass.

Heater
06-15-2006, 14:52
If you get the shakes, try staring out the window at the green grass.

...or try smoking some of it. :-?

OH GEEEEZE! There i go again. Maybe intervention is required. :eek:

Woe! My lawn needs to be cut. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Alligator.
This one is for you! :banana

plydem
06-15-2006, 14:53
I have to admit, the dancing banana makes the day so much better!

Ridge
07-13-2006, 16:59
A Wilderness Medical Emergency and a very descriptive attack by a dog on the AT

"A large German shepherd had attacked a boy. His neck and shirt were bloody on the left side, and there were bites on his right arm. The right side of his face was bleeding profusely. He was traumatized and hyperventilating..........."

Bet the owners were the fishermen, who later showed up. A young boy scout having probably his first outdoor adventure ruined. And, dog hikers don't understand why others get upset about loose dogs on the trail. How would you feel is this had been your child??

http://www.canoe-suwannee.com/Taccoa.htm

Ridge
07-13-2006, 17:12
The outcome, for those who don't won't to read the article. A statement from the mother to those who helped her son....

"Nevertheless, she said he had to have 67 external stitches, and she was unsure how many internal ones (probably inside the mouth as his cheek had been lacerated completely through). She did say a plastic surgeon had been available for the stitching, so maybe his scars will be minimal. She also said that the dog's owner had been located (he lived near where the Scout troop had hiked in) and that he was not willing to have the dog euthanized; apparently, the owner was within his legal right not to
destroy the dog."

FatMan
07-13-2006, 20:08
The dog attack on the Toccoa river in 1998 was a tragic event. However, the event has little to do with allowing dogs on the AT. Ridge, first of all you know better than to use that article to say the event happened on the AT. That footbridge over the Toccoa isn't anywhere near the AT. If that is news to you then you are not the seasoned hiker I believe you to be. The article has it wrong and you are showing your colors by saying the attack happened on the AT. Also, the dog did not belong to hikers or the fishermen that you placed your bet on. The article states the fishermen turned the dog over to the Forest Service. The article says the dog was a local dog who followed the group from the hwy. Also mentioned in the article was that nobody knows for sure what happened, and that it was possible the dog was provoked by the child.

So I have to ask, what does this article have to do with allowing dogs on the AT. How would banning dogs from the AT prevented this little boy from being hurt. Ridge, you are very gifted in sensationalism. You should work for a political party where this kind of crap is expected.

Chip
07-13-2006, 20:42
In regards to first aid this is a good article. As for the dog attack, what is the purpose in posting this ? People can get bitten walking down a side walk in town by a dog on the lose. Granted, dogs should not run free in town or on the trail. There are alot of dogs that run free because owners let them. Dogs like guns are not the problem ! It is the owner who must take responsibility. :)

Ridge
07-13-2006, 23:17
...... As for the dog attack, what is the purpose in posting this ? ............ It is the owner who must take responsibility. :)



Simply to point out the fact that a loose dog is one not on a leash, regardless where the owner is. Dog's need to be fenced or on a leash and not allowed to roam in the public, which means being unleashed on a trail even if the owner is standing next to the dog. The dog can still attack and bite before an owner can restrain it. And, I agree, its always the owner and not the dog. Lots of owners will blame the attack on the victim instead of their dog, which happens to be pure BS.

Ridge
07-13-2006, 23:23
Yes, I said ON the AT should be NEAR the AT, which Duncan Ridge is.

Ridge
07-13-2006, 23:27
And, I do know the first place to boat to the AT (NOBO) would be NOC, Nantahala R. the next would be Fontana.