Status of Dogs in Wilderness Areas?

[yosemite samizdat]

I brought this up in the post regarding possible legislation expanding biking in Nat Parks and was properly admonished that it was off-topic, so I am posting it separately:

Everyone who camps and owns dogs loves to bring their pups along. Cal State Parks and National Parks ban them from trails based on the supposed risk of environmental impact. But since they are permitted in National Forests one can do the empirical "border study" and notice that, e.g., Ansel Adams does not seem to suffer from more environmental impact than SEKI as a result of dogs (or comparing, say, La Tuna Park to Topanga State Park, and so on).

I wonder if anyone is aware of any policy movement to allow dogs in more backcountry areas similar to the apparent bike push? Is this something dog owners are organized about to any degree?

Anticipating potential criticism - I have never had a problem with the requirement that they must remain leashed, and I would even support requiring some kind of special permit with an educational component to the campfire permit process. Or even posting a special fee for environmental mitigation, if that's what it took.

[Wandering Daisy]

Even on FS trails, it is not as simple as allow or not allow dogs. If you have ever used Rock Creek much, you realize that the number of dogs on the trails (due mainly to day-hikers), is getting over the top. I think there is a limit, like there is a limit to people on trails, in other words, quotas. If every backpacker took a dog, I think that would be too many dogs. And lets admit it, even if a dog is on a leash, if it is not trained it can be a problem. I for one do not want to listen to a dog bark all night. Unfortunately there are a lot of untrained dogs out there. And some owners who do not clean up after their dogs.

I do not buy the concept that dogs per se cause undue impact. I walk my dog every day, illegally unleashed, and must say that I have more "control" over her than 90% of the owners who use a leash. Backpacking, I take a leash, but do not use it when not needed. I do have to leash her when I fish because she cannot resist wanting to "herd" the fly line. When meeting others on the trail, we move off, and the dog sits until they pass. She has been trained NOT to chase animals and gets plenty of practice because we walk daily where there are tons of wild turkeys. I will admit it took a LOT of training and effort to get our dog trained. Just because a person backpacks, does not necessarily mean they have a well trained dog. Even on the Forest Service land, I wish there was some kind of license dogs had to get to be allowed on the trail.

I think the real reason the National Parks and State Parks do not allow dogs, is that they simply do not want to open a can of worms. They are perfectly happy with the way it is now and can see that it can easily get out of control.

I think this is a good discussion to have, but probably not the time (with new permit system, COVID, fires, underfunding, etc) the National Parks want to delve into this issue. In fact, I would not be surprised if some Forest Service areas start talking about not allowing dogs in the wilderness, just because people, let alone dogs are getting out of control.

[dave54]

This highlights one of the key differences between National Park (and state parks) and National Forests.
NPs were created for preservation. National Forests were created for utilization.

This formed the management philosophies of the two agencies. The NPS enacts regulations after analyzing what impacts may occur and tries to prevent them. The FS waits until problems do occur, then applies the minimum regulation needed to reduce the problem.
NPS = proactive. FS = reactive.

The FS will not regulate dogs until it becomes a significant measurable problem.

I have no problem with dogs, and can count on one hand with fingers left over the times I had a bad encounter.

[rlown]

In decades of waterfowl hunting with many strange dogs around, they all seem to better when off leash and trained. No fights, just sniffing. But they don't like their birds/"property" touched. Simba has a remote vibrate collar and I've tested him twice in the tent and at Loon lake. No barking even in a hail storm. He does hate bicycles. Most dogs I see on trail are off leash, but as WD said, it is wise to take your dog off to the side when having people or mule trains approach.
I leash on roads or at trailheads until they get a feel for the trail. Then it is still the remote collar. It is a great backup for voice command override.

[Harlen]

y.s. I applaud your advocacy for dogs, but I would only approve of dogs in NPs, and SPs if there were strict limitations. Quotas like WD proposes, educational certification, as you mention, and perhaps most importantly for the health of the wildlife-- a health cert. showing the dog tests negative for the diseases that can be transferred to wildlife, eg., distemper. Yes, a lot of trouble and expense. Certain areas of the National Parks are more suitable for dogs than others. Luckily, those are mostly the high, rocky places at and above tree-line. Less interaction with wildlife up there- sorry Marmot and Pika.

I am up for critcism for hypocracy, since I am one of those who has taken my dog, and been with a friend and his dog a few times into the NP. We were always high up, never bothered anyone, or the wildlife-- well, maybe a squirrel or two?

Finally, I am a great advocate for dogs off leashs. Again, with some limitations in crowded areas, and the dogs should not be out of control, or aggressive. Dogs just naturally want to move at a different pace than we humans; they want to be free to follow their noses and explore. I feel chaining an active dog to a slow human is a subtle form of torture for the dog. What do you think Bearzy?

100_2911.jpg

IMG_1061.JPG

Let me free!

[Wandering Daisy]

Aside from limiting a dog's sniffing, I find that on a leash, my dog wants to go fast up steep parts of the trail, faster than I can, so she pulls against the leash, and as a result, wears her paws to raw sores. It is really difficult to have a dog on a leash on a narrow trail that is rocky, steep, and overgrown with brush. A dog will not behave on the trail off leash unless you specifically train the dog off-leash, and that means almost every day reinforcement.

Unfortunately, very few people will spend the time to seriously train their dogs and use the leash as "control". A well trained dog is absolutely under better control than any untrained dog on a leash.

Harlen, I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I am very curious how you see hunting? How it is good or bad or neutral with wildlife management? My personal thinking is that the National Park practice of not allowing limited hunting has contributed to problem bears. I can only compare with what I experience in the Wind Rivers in Wyoming -- LOTs more wildlife, including wolves and grizzlies, yet much LESS people-bear problems, and LOTs more hunting.

[rlown]

You're seriously asking Harlen about hunting?

[Harlen]

I sense administrative trouble WD, so I will move my reply to a new post: "Hunting?"

[Shawn]

I'm a big time dog lover, so much that I'll occasionally search, track and trap dogs that have become helplessly lost in rural or remote areas. In doing so, I've lost count as to how many well trained dogs have gone missing for one reason or another (e.g. formally trained hunting dogs with competition medals among others). Regardless of how well trained you think your dog is, you can and will lose control under the right (or wrong) circumstances.
Perhaps the FS has considered this issues and doesn't want to get involved in rescuing dogs in the back country? At a minimum, how are they to believe one person from another about complying with the posted rules about staying on leash because most dog owners feel as though they have "control" of their dog? Just food for thought.

PS. Here's a little sample
http://strategicpetrecovery.com/

[c9h13no3]

What do you call a dog under voice control? Lost