Should the burden of dealing with off leash dogs rest with their owners, or hikers that encounter them in NFS Wilderness

[erutan]

While I appreciate all the varying perspectives on dogs in the Sierra, and happily provided my own views, can this please be the end of the discussion of it here? It can be redirected as a new topic in the Campfire section--if anyone is still interested.

I've had some more time to think about this, and based on the following request am making a new thread. I'll include some quotes from people interacting with me on the side (anonymously) since they help illustrate things. A lot here and it's written in a break between client work and preparing for a backpacking trip so some sentences might be a bit malformed, but I've been encouraged privately to keep the topic alive. Since a lot of people are squeamish about publicly stating their opinions on this, I've made a poll with various choices both more permissive and more restrictive than current regulations / expected behavior.

I am 99% certain (been with him 7.5 yrs now) that you will either see a dog on his own mission, cruising about, and ignoring all of us, or if you're lucky, a friendly dog, with his ears down, squirming a bit in anticipation of perhaps a pat on the head. He will not bark, nor show a single sign of aggression. Bearzy has never been in a dog fight-- let alone hassled a human.

[...]

They are both trained with a snake-like hiss, and the words Sloooow to stop, and if repeated, to walk behind us, so they are effectively "leashed." I believe that to always have a dog leashed, and stuck at our own paltry pace, is a refined and inexcusable form of torture!

It's worth noting that before this was edited it just stated he hoped I would have a positive experience when his dogs ran up to me wagging their tails (right after I'd been attacked by a dog in the wilderness). In further conversations he kept referring to the fact that he hoped someday I'd come across his off-leash dogs in the wilderness and it'd be great when they approached me. It's worth pointing out that I have repeatedly stated that in clear language that I didn't want to be approached by anyone's dogs regardless of how friendly they are. :/

I'm not saying that his dogs aren't (somewhat) trained or friendly, and he definitely cares about their impact more than most, but the consensus that his dogs should be able to approach anyone (that isn't a child of elderly) is where the balance seems REALLY off to me. Given that there will always be people that have poorly trained dogs in the wilderness the main way I have of telling if someone's dog is trained is how close they are to their owner. There's a huge emotional blind spot that many people have towards their dogs that doesn't allow them to view how others may percieve them.

In a hike last winter someone was approaching us with an off leash dog alongside a river walking alongside him. Even though we were up on the bank, and he was walking alonside it he used voice control to have his dog move to his other side, keeping his dog between him and us despite there being a fairly large distance between us. I appreciated this and thanked him when we got closer, as it was a sign of good faith that his dog was under control and wouldn't approach us.

The dog seemed perfectly happy to me, and showed no signs of being under inexcusable torture. A properly trained dog will be happy to stay near it's owner. I imagine part of the reason that it seems cruel to have his dogs under the common definition of voice control is that they are incompletely trained and often run off to do their own thing, and constantly reigning them in seems mean.

I've had some encounters with "friendly" and "trained" dogs in the Sierra Nevada:

* Twice I've had an off-leash dog stop in front of me growling for a minute or so with it's fur raised. Eventually the owners come into line of sight and approach me assuring me their dog is friendly.

* In July a dog ran up to me and started snarling and lunging at me, I had to use my trekking poles to create a defensible space. The owner was repeatedly yelling for it to come back, then eventually ran up and restrained it after it had flanked me trying to find a weakness in my space. They insisted their dog didn't have to be on a leash because it was under voice control. Mhm.

* The woman that was recently bitten going up Kearsarge Pass was told, after she was bitten no less, that the dog was friendly.

So... maybe most of these dogs were actually 99% fine. Maybe they smelled a bear or large cat, maybe they slept weird, maybe their owners were cranky, who knows. From my perspective any dog that isn't under control is a potential threat because I don't know what's going on its mind or how its mood will change.

----------

I've recieved various interpretations of my actions here:

Congratulations for taking the risk and commenting on dogs in the wilderness. However, seeing as you are the point guy I hope you keep at the subject in the very professional manner you have been. No shrill stuff. Good facts. Not backing down. Just cause. Good evidence.

Harlan may feel your comments do not describe his dogs, but FWIW he is actually in the camp of condemning out of control dogs, as evidenced by his comment on requiring dogs undergo a certification before being allowed into the BC. Unfortunately you either decided to take a hardline on the topic or missed his sentiments altogether.

[...]

But I am a realist, and won't let perfect get in the way of good enough. If the dogs are friendly, that's good enough for me, I am not in danger. If they stay somewhere near the owners they are not stressing the fauna anymore so than the presence of humans, and definitely no more so than the local, skilled predators. I'll save my vitriol for the owners who are indifferent to the fact their particular animal presents a safety hazard to the public in a outdoor setting, or ones who let their animal range over the countryside at large.

I'd be curious if any reputable certification course would agree with the following statements (let alone that all 3 of these disagree with permit use he's agreed to):

1) Dogs should always be allowed to approach people unless they are children or the elderly
2) Multiple dogs should be allowed to roam freely "on their own adventures" while the owner is navigating off trail terrain.
3) Having a dog trained to be near it's owner at all times constitutes torture.

There's also a noticebale difference between "I am not in danger" and "I won't have to evaluate every situation I come across as being potentially in danger".

----------

I point out if we took a no exceptions approach to the regs, almost all campers would be guilty of any number of rule infractions, for example: have you ever chose to step off the track to avoid a section of trail that was muddy/manure covered/flooded? That is against the regs, most people do it, and often results in parallel tracks that rut up the ecology. (And surely you don't obey the speed limit the entire way from OC, up 395!) Yep, we all make excuses when it suits us, dog owners are no different. If someone lectured you about leaving the trail or speeding up 395 I am pretty sure their POV will fall on deaf ears. So how do we engage the scofflaws?

Judging people never met and their capabilities as pet owners is not constructive, especially when we take liberties with certain rules. The fact I acknowledge we all have flouted the regs at various times does not mean I condone scofflaw behavior perse, be it bypassing a mucked up section of trail, or someone letting their mutt snack on on hapless hikers and leaving poop next to a neighboring campers' tent door. But I the spirit behind the regs leaves room for exceptions, provided no harm of negative consequences arise from such actions.

I've never driven up from Orange County. Regardless I generally stay at 5mph above speed limit, occasionally 10 with the flow of traffic (though I drive a diesel van, so it's not like I'm going to be doing 90 anyways).

Last summer I was walking through 1/2" or so of water on trail in Virginia Canyon, but stepped out of the trail when it was a pool that went above my boots. Another time I stepped off trail along pine creek because the trail was eroded to a waist high single track channel - trying to continue walking in it would have wedged my pack in! This summer I was walking along a flooded trail that also had a weak snow bridge on top of it dropping from McGee Pass to Fish Creek in May. Trying to stay on trail seemed like a good way to twist an ankle.

In the past two summers I've only camped too close to water once, that was at the small lake just below Vernon Pass. The only place to reasonably camp was on some broken slightly rolling slabs near the outlet, or drop nearly 1000 feet at dusk.

I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone here follows the rules 99.x% of the time, and yes that's not 100%. If a third of my photos were of me breaking regulations and occasional photo captions were making jokes about it "naughty eru, you aren't supposed to camp that close to water" or "haha my kicks are still clean suckers" I'd hope that I'd be called on it.

Publicly supporting that he shouldn't be bound by any regulations will lead to other dog owners not bothering to keep their pets under control.

A while back someone posted in a trip report they couldn't find a legal campsite near a lake and had to camp on grass - I commented that we found a spot that fit a 2p tent but it was tucked away and took us some time. They made a good faith effort and I didn't condemn them for it - just shared a photo of the campsite and GPS coordinates / location of it on a map so others going there would know there was a camp on a durable surface there they could use.

----------

I mainly post, however, to suggest there are things folks can do that reduce any potential bad encounters with dogs.

• Ascertain if the dog is acting defensively/aggressively. If so give it a wide berth, and wait for the owner to restrain their pet. Wide berth, as in 50 yards, not 20 feet.
• Do not make eye contact with a stranger dog - they may consider that a provocative behavior. Just the same, by all means keep them somewhere in the field of vision.
• Do not attempt physical interaction with stranger dogs until the owner explicitly assures you this is OK. Just the same if the dog acts skittish, forego any further attempts.

When a dog comes at an individual from a distance - say 30' - they telegraph their intention well before they are upon you. In a 30' range you can tell if they are friendly or intending to assert territoriality/aggression by:

1. Where they direct their focus (at your eyes- good- at your hands or legs - not so good).
2. Body posture (head raised - good - head lowered - bad if accompanied by a stalking gait).
3. Body movement (loping up to you with a playful bounce in their gait, or converging with minimal bouncy like movements like they were stalking, chasing you down).
4. Folks will also tell you to assess tail wagging characteristics, albeit I find tails can be easily misread.
5. Raised fur along the spine, crouching, and additional cues are there to read intentions before the dog has closed the gap.
6. There are also defensive skills that you can use when confronted by a determined, aggressive dog.

So we have two scenarios here regarding the burden of dogs:

Scenario 1: The dog owner restrains their dog and/or keeps it at their side when a hiker get near.

As a hiker I feel comfortable that their dog is near them. This shows that a) their dog is following commonly accepted definitions of being trained b) if their dog does get aggressive for whatever reason they are close enough to restrain it.

I'll still probably keep some distance between us, but I won't be actively worried.

Scenario 2: The dog owner let's their dog roam dozens/hundreds of feet from them and doesn't call them back when a hiker gets close.

Even if there dogs are trained, I have no way of knowing this. They are either unable or unwilling to follow regulations, so they are viewed as a potential threat (especially if I come across them in a national park where they are explicitly banned) due to their dogs being more volatile than properly trained dogs.

At this point I should try to stay 50 yards away from (good luck on switchbacks or tight terrain) them while monitoring often contradictory characteristics - it's good if they are looking at my eyes but I cannot make eye contact with them (the latter complicates monitoring everything). If they start approaching me then I have to monitor things even closer (again with no eye contact, and not showing my teeth (if I need to communicate with my partner or try to get the dog owner to call back their dogs I should cover my mouth). Are their ears down in a good way, or a bad way - if they're running towards me how do I tell what their ears are doing. What if it is windy? If they are so far from their owner that I have to yell to their owner to have them restrained, could that set them off? If a dog comes up to me expecting a pat on the head do I appease it or wait until the owner explicitly tells me to do so (I’d err on no interaction).

Granted there's obviously cases where there are out of control dogs where Scenario 2 is unavoidable, but actively encouraging dog owners to have their dogs act like they aren't trained puts a large burden on everyone else - basically every single dog encountered becomes a long list of things to keep track of. It's their choice to bring their dogs into the wilderness!

update: it's worth noting that I have the permission of everyone I anonymously quoted from private correspondence to do so.

[balzaccom]

There are numerous issues here. Only one is the interaction between dogs and other hikers or horses. There are also interactions where dogs may pursue wildlife, or in some case, where wildlife might pursue dogs. I don't have a real issue with dogs on the trail, but I do understand that some people are less comfortble with dogs than others, It is incumbent on the dog owners to make sure that ALL peopple on the trail feel comfortable.

And I've run into enough dogs that showed interest in deer, squirrels, coyotes, and the like to know that even well-trained dogs may go a bit wild when confronted with an animal they rarely see, and dont understand.

Keep your dog close. And when other people are around, keep you dog on a leash.

[Wandering Daisy]

The term "well trained dog" can vary a lot in what specifically they were trained to do. For example, not all "well trained dogs" can do what police dogs do, or dogs that care for disabled. A well trained wilderness dog should have come in contact with a wide variety of wildlife as part of their training. This training is done small steps at a time. It is a gradual process. And it never ends. Every trip you take your dog on is also a training session. Basic training is obeying his master. More complex training involves behavior in situations even when his master is not present. I suspect that Harlen's dogs have had experience with many forms of wildlife and could likely appropriately behave even when Harlen is not right beside them. I also bet that Harlen and his dogs go days without seeing any other person. I also think Harlen would put his dog on a leash if needed.

Also depends on the breed. Herding dogs generally do not run off because their job is to herd and protect their "pack". Our dog will not even let us out of her sight.

The "rule" that your dog is always right at your side is unrealistic. Yes, when on busy trails. A moot point when you are where you seldom see others.

Given that it is a lot of work to have a really well trained wilderness dog, leashes are wise for most backpackers with dogs. I really think most owners fully know if their dog is well trained. A lot are not and if the owner is honest, they will leash their dog around people and wildlife.

Dogs can sense when a person fears them or does not like dogs. So maybe other backpackers need to let the dog owner that they are not "dog friendly". Like say "heads up- dogs do not like me, be careful with your dog". Or perhaps some better wording.

And a trail over-run with dogs can be a big problem. I have had issues with the number of dogs on the trails out of Rock Creek. The solution to this is perhaps to allow dogs on more trails to spread out the use.

[John Harper]

My roommate just got bit by a dog that "had never bitten anyone before" according to the owner. Yes, and I have some dry land in the Everglades for sale. Dry at low tide, that is.

Keep your dogs on a leash!!!

John

[Wandering Daisy]

So was that bite out in the wilderness or in town? How old was the dog? What provoked the bite?

My dog has been attacked by another dog that WAS on a leash. This whole issue is more complex than just the leash.

[limpingcrab]

Alternate solution:
No more dogs and the billions of dollars spent on dog care is used to feed starving people.

[rlown]

I actually prefer electronic collar when in the back country.
If dog is doing well, no beep, no vibrate and no nick. If dog doesn't listen upon the second request, go straight to vibrate. If said dog ignores that, the nick will get a quick return to owner response. Beep seems to get the attention. Seldom do I have to go past vibrate. We use them all the time at waterfowl refuges where none of the dogs are on leash. In fact several of my past dogs seem to be more unpredictable when on leash, probably because they think I need protection.
Side note: I'd get rid of all the cats to feed the starving people first. Haven't seen a working cat, ever.

[John Harper]

So was that bite out in the wilderness or in town? How old was the dog? What provoked the bite?

My dog has been attacked by another dog that WAS on a leash. This whole issue is more complex than just the leash.

In town, no idea how old the dog was. Owner had three unleashed dogs. Two of them knocked her down, and the other one bit her. My roommate is 74 years old.

The owner was a small woman, who could not control any of her dogs. Just another self absorbed dog owner with no consideration for others.

John

[John Harper]

I actually prefer electronic collar when in the back country.
If dog is doing well, no beep, no vibrate and no nick. If dog doesn't listen upon the second request, go straight to vibrate. If said dog ignores that, the nick will get a quick return to owner response. Beep seems to get the attention. Seldom do I have to go past vibrate. We use them all the time at waterfowl refuges where none of the dogs are on leash. In fact several of my past dogs seem to be more unpredictable when on leash, probably because they think I need protection.
Side note: I'd get rid of all the cats to feed the starving people first. Haven't seen a working cat, ever.

Then you never lived on a ranch with mice in the barns. A couple good "mousers" takes care of that.

John

[rlown]

I live on a ranch with a barn. We have a few rats. A few less because the 3 dogs serve double duty.