High Sierra Topix

Regulations are effective only when there are consequences. Everyone speeds; but very few abuse the HOV lane regs or drive drunk. Because of the consequences. If violent dog incursions were addressed as severely as human on human assault, it would strongly deter owners with poorly behaving pets, as well as motivate some owners of dogs guilty of merely violating the personal space of strangers, to better train/control their pets in public.

-----------------
As a former dog owner, me think it is BS to state leashing a dog is inhumane or a form of torture. My dogs were always VERY happy to be outdoors, leashed or otherwise. What is inhumane is owning just one dog, who is routinely left alone for long periods, due to work or other human obligations. But I digress.

Ed

I agree, leashing a dog is not inhumane. But if you have spent a lot of time training your dog and he/she has proven to be able to behave on trails then at least some off-leash time on less crowded parts is fine with me. Responsible dog owners who know their dogs use common sense to determine if they need to leash up. I doubt a new regulation would solve the problem with irresponsible dog owners.

From my perspective, there should be no burden of dealing with off leash dogs. They should be kept on leash or left at home. I have yet to see an unleashed dog that is so well trained that the owner can control it by voice alone.

Gogd wrote:

As a former dog owner, me think it is BS to state leashing a dog is inhumane or a form of torture.

I had no idea that people would be so literal minded.
What I said at the end of my long comment on page 3 of my TR, was this:

We care a lot about the wilderness, but admittedly run into conflicts, as we care for our dogs like children, and want them to express themselves and have a great life. With that in mind, I must say that I believe that to always have a dog leashed, and stuck at our own paltry pace, is a refined and inexcusable form of torture!

First please note the word "always" in that sentence, and that it was underlined for emphasis. For the literal readers, I guess I should have written: "... to always have some dogs leashed, and stuck at our paltry pace..." Do folks really think that I do not recognize that for many dogs (for instance, my own Mother's many generations of dogs), the leashed walk around the neighborhood is not a torture, but rather, the highlight of their lives! But constant leashing would be torture-- okay, not the literal definition of "torture," I'll say deeply frustrating for dogs like ours, and many others of my acquaintance-- dogs who run free in big yards all day, whose daily walks are in fact, wild runs in the hills, or on open beaches. Even for my parents' many indoor/small-yard dogs, who are content to be leashed, and happy on their walks, when I have taken them somewhere safe, and let them off the leash, they all have been nothing less than ecstatic! --They run, twist and turn, roll around on their backs, it is a joy for them, and a joy to watch. This is 8 family dogs I've done this with, and other dogs too.
I have also seen too much of the opposite-- energetic young dogs like "Jasper," the young Golden down the road, who are left tied up to the porch outside, and taken only on leashed walks. This dog truly suffers when we run by on the way to the creek-- it's awful to see.

Let me also note that in my original comment, I expressed my firm disapproval of aggressive and out of control dogs being inflicted on innocent people and animals:

...we too are absolutely not fans of aggressive, or out of control dogs in public places. I actually can get pretty wild myself when I have to pull aggressive dogs away from our dogs, or children.

Another clarification: When I wrote in my comment: "Lizzie and I are quick to leash them whenever little people, old people, or other leashed dogs are present," that does not mean that is the only time, and the only kinds of people for whom we will leash them, but examples of the instances when we are "quick to leash them" when they have been moving unleashed. Some one might have inferred that we also choose to leash them from the start in other circumstances. So, to be more transparent, I will add that the dogs are almost always leashed for hours at the beginning and end of backpacking trips, which is where we encounter about 90% of the people. I feel now that I must fully flesh out other points too, lest I be misunderstood again; so I will add that when I am off-trail with Bearzy unleashed, and I do see other hikers coming, I am always willing and ready to leash him, if I sense a person's unease, and just on principle-- that is, the principle to respect some hikers distaste for domestic dogs, especially in the backcountry. One of our good friends (a fellow ecologist) feels strongly this way. However, in all of our experience in the Sierra to date there has not been a single rebuke, instead, a lot of happy encounters.¹ I don't know how I came to be known as this renegade who doesn't give a $hit about others?

Finally, I hope that we are not also seen as horrible parents to our children, since by literal inference, we treat them like dogs!

...we care for our dogs like children...

Oh yes, and respectfully to RichardCullip, who comments:

From my perspective, there should be no burden of dealing with off leash dogs. They should be kept on leash or left at home. I have yet to see an unleashed dog that is so well trained that the owner can control it by voice alone.

I bet he is generally correct, but with a lot of consistency, it can be done. As I stated in my former comment:

.... They are both trained with a snake-like hiss, and the words Sloooow" to stop, and if repeated, to walk right behind us, so they are effectively "leashed,"

(though perhaps not in the strictest sense of the rules.) Richard, if we ever meet, I will happily show you that our dogs are so trained. They are very good at this training, though they are not as good at other desired training goals. No one is perfect, eh?


No one has mentioned that when dogs are negotiating certain kinds of terrain, ie, steep scree, boulder fields, and snow slopes, they need to be off leash in order to best use their momentum and balance. In boulder fields with scary holes, we put Wolfie into a chest pack for safety.

Thanks for hearing me out; I think many good points have been made on this topic, I just think we should try to see the best in each others statements and intentions, rather than assuming the worst. All the Best, Ian and Lizzie.



¹ I do realize that many people would not voice their disappointment, though they disapproved of our dogs off leash.

Last summer my daughter and I were caught in an epic thunderstorm at Ruby Lake. Between storm bands we got out of the tent and encountered a lost leashless dog, who clung to us since its owners were nowhere to be found. Fortunately a dayhiker came by and agreed to take the dog out to the trailhead in the hope of finding its owners. I hope the dog was eventually reunited but I do not know. It ruined the dayhiker's plans, but someone had to try to save this dog. Our best guess is that the dog was with its owner(s) on the main trail, the storm hit, the dog ran and found its way all the way down the spur trail to Ruby Lake while the owners probably looked up and down the main trail--to no avail.

Even well behaved, well trained dogs can get spooked by a storm, a bear, etc. If this dog had been lost in a less crowded area, it might well have died in the wilderness, or gone feral and done significant damage as it lived out a short and miserable life.

I have backpacked with an exceptionally well trained dog off leash, but after last summer's experience my attitude has changed. The best reason to keep dogs on a leash is to protect the dogs.

This is not a black and white issue. The responses in this thread seem to vary from: totally ban dogs in the wilderness to strict on-leash regulations to let the owner decide when their dogs should be off or on leash. I do not think anyone has expressed that having dogs entirely off-leash all the time. The National Parks and most California State Parks have banned dogs entirely. The FS has mixed policies with some areas of "dog under control" to "leash required" to no dogs allowed. Most BLM land is totally unregulated with regard to dogs, except in sensitive wildlife habitat.

One unintended consequence of no-dog policy is that those areas that do allow dogs get over-used, especially by day-hikers. In kpeter's experience at Ruby Lake, the dog likely was from day-hikers. The Rock Creek trails are very popular for day-hikers and dogs. As much as that causes a few problems when I backpack, I am glad there is a place for casually walking your dog off-leash, fishing for a day, and other less restrictive (permit-required) activities than backpacking.

Dealing with dogs is simply something I accept if I choose to backpack out of Rock Creek, just like trails packed with tourist are what I accept when backpacking from Yosemite Valley. For every bad experience I have had with dogs in the wilderness I have had hundreds of good experiences. In fact, I have had about the same number of experiences with "bad" backpackers as "bad" dogs. I am not in favor regulations that are set for the lowest common denominator, be it dog or human. Access to public lands is a big issue with me and I am willing to pay the price of a few bad encounters to keep open access for all kinds of people and their dogs.

Yesterday at Granite Lake. I was coming back from a trail crew, and was met by two large and aggressive dogs---one a huge pit bull mix, the other a shepherd mix. They barked, then growled as they approached me until the owner called them back and they immediately returned to him. OK fine. Then as I walked by (he moved up and away from the trail to allow me to pass) the shepherd escaped and raced at me, barking furiously and nipping at the back of my legs--but no actual contact. He called her back, and she returned to him. And he apologized again.

400 yards down the trail, I met six people hiking with three dogs---two very sedate goldens, and a smaller terrier mix, totally under control. I warned them about the dogs at the lake. 200 yards after that, I met another couple hiking with a tiny terrier on a leash. I warned them about the dogs at the lake.

That's a whole lot of worrying and dealing with dogs--even though the initial owner was able to control them. And I was reasonably calm about the whole thing. But there is no reason that anyone should have to accept a dog nipping within inches of their legs like that.

So if we are to improve the situation, what should the appropriate action be? Should the initial owner be cited for his dogs' behaviour? Should the initial owner be fined? I made sure he was well aware that the dogs needed to be under his control at all times. What happens if they attack one of the dogs that arrived later?

Balzacom writes, and I supplied the bold responses:

So if we are to improve the situation, what should the appropriate action be? Should the initial owner be cited for his dogs' behaviour? YES. Should the initial owner be fined? YES. I made sure he was well aware that the dogs needed to be under his control at all times. What happens if they attack one of the dogs that arrived later?*

*I'd break up the fight using appropriate restraint, tying not to have to injure the dogs. If no damage to the innocent dog occurred, then it's just a quiet reasoning with, or stern lecture to the dog's owner, depending on his attitude. If damage occurred to my innocent dog, I would grab the aggressive dog-- [best technique for untangling fighting dogs for me has been to tightly wrap my fingers into the loose skin high on the neck, right under the jaw, from behind the dog, and lift and hold the dog, or throw the dog to the ground on its side and kneel on their chest with my head and upper body weight leaning heavily over the dog while telling it "NO." I have also had success grabbing the face skin of the aggressor. Though your hands are very close to the dogs mouth, they cannot reach you. (half of my dog wrestling experience has been with very large Malamutes, both in the dog yard, and while mushing; the other half has been "dog street fights")].
I can now generally hold my temper, but if I chose to let it go, I would carry the thrashing dog over to it's offending owner, and knock him down with the dog, or throw it at him.

So if we are to improve the situation, what should the appropriate action be? Should the initial owner be cited for his dogs' behaviour? Should the initial owner be fined? I made sure he was well aware that the dogs needed to be under his control at all times. What happens if they attack one of the dogs that arrived later?

Like any other law, if there are no Real consequences then nothing will change. If a rangers is not present at the scene, how are they supposed to track down the dog owner, especially if it is a day hiker?

We have a law on texting/cell phone usage while driving, nationwide 400 people loose their lives yearly due to texting while driving, but we all continue to see dozens of people texting while driving on our daily commutes. The fine is $162 for the first offense, which increases on subsequent offenses, but it still continues.

And like most law enforcement agencies, the NF/NPS are all understaffed. We all have witnessed numerous violations in the front and backcountry, like illegal campsites, illegal campfires/fire rings, improper food storage, and littering to name a very few. What about the lack of enforcement of these laws? These violations have a real negative impact on our wilderness.

Unfortunately some people don’t care about how their actions impact others at home or in the wilderness, and no toothless law, that cannot be enforced anyways, is going to change that.

It is sad that the dogs are the one being vilified in most of these cases, in some extreme cases euthanized, when all the real responsibility lies with the owner.
The dog cannot train itself, it cannot put itself on a lease, nor can it not be an animal and act instinctively.

I for one would prefer they spend their scant resources on the regulations/laws already on the books, and prioritizing the ones dealing with rehabilitating and protecting our wilderness.

@Wandering Daisy I'd say there's a lot of grey areas in this thread - I agreed with you that having dogs on leashes isn't always a productive solution, and linked to a suggestion that allowed for slightly less restrictive off leash terms while having dogs more firmly in control when near people. The fact that many of the poll responses are somewhat in the middle would support that as well.

I personally don't feel the solution to people taking their dogs up LLV, South Lake, & Big Pine Creek is to just allow dogs in National Parks. I personally find it relaxing when I head over into a wilderness boundary knowing that I don't have to deal with people's dogs. That being said NFS land is the land of many uses, and part of the issue is that Inyo isn't clear with their current regulations, let alone the fact they are lacking (a 6 foot leash on a narrow set of switchbacks is effectively meaningless). I do think that clarifying/modifying the regs will shift the opinion and behavior of most, or at least make dog owners less belligerent when told to leash their dogs. Obviously some people will not follow them regardless, as in other areas.

As I stated before, the vast majority of off-leash dogs on trail are well behaved and stay within 2-3 feet of their owner (seemingly perfectly happy to move at their paltry pace) and many dogs on leashes get choked up a bit. I'm perfectly fine with that behavior, though I'll still give up my uphill right away and step to the side with poles in front of me as they pass in case they get spooked etc. Probably 1 in 20 dogs are allowed to run right up to me, and the dog owners are always of the mindset that "it's not a big deal" and they're doing me a favor. That IMO is an undue burden on my part - if someone is capable of controlling their dog around around other people, they should control that dog.

I've never been attacked by a "bad" backpacker - I've found some annoying and disapproved of others. I've actually gotten a few to move from terrible campsite choices by approaching them with a friendly tone and letting them know they'd be fined if noticed, that it's a popular area etc. Sometimes I'll lie and say there was a ranger behind me on trail. In the end a "positive experience" of interacting with someone's dog doesn't outweigh the very real chance of being attacked and bitten by one in my book (and apparently those of many others).

In regards to the title being biased - the poll options show a range of options in terms of responsibility and burden, starting with the entire burden being on hikers, and on the bottom more of a burden on dog owners. While leashed dogs are an issue, I've never been attacked or threatened by a leashed dog compared to the three incidents with unleashed dogs, and at least the owner has more of ability to control their animal. All those times were dogs running up to me aggressive from the start - it's not like I got near and was then uncomfortable with them which triggered them etc. Who knows what caused that behavior.

@Harlen I asked you a few times to at least to not have your dogs run up to me and others, acknowledging you'd never follow the 6 foot rule due to anything that I said. Your response was always something along the lines that they'd come up to me if they chose to wanting a pat on the head etc, and that I was being overly negative by not wanting them to approach me. If you start leashing or restraining them on principle (or at least call them to your side) whenever you encounter someone (not letting your dogs be the ones to decide, or only when you feel it's absolutely necessary) that would be deeply appreciated.

In regards to the torture comment, I felt it was worth bringing up as you doubled down on it - your original reply to me merely said it was cruel before you rewrote it to be even stronger. There was no "some" in there either time around, nor any indication it was meant entirely as a joke - I'm not sure how anyone was supposed to assume that it was only meant for your dogs (and those like them) and not dogs in general. I wasn't disregarding the "always" in there, as Wandering Daisy said, some people know their dogs need to be leashed and keep them on leash the entire hike. Some HST members keep their dogs on trail and off (worried about impacts on wildlife), and others keep their dogs well within 6 feet of them for their entire hike.

In regards to the steep scree, it seems like a retractable leash could have worked in that case, and I don't see any real reason why the dog with the blue pack in the back needs to ~20 feet away or so to negotiate that terrain. What is the maximum distance you feel dogs need to have if six feet isn't enough - 10, 20, 50, 100 feet?

@maverick it wouldn't take that much time for them to update, or at least clarify the existing regs, though NFS in particular is understaffed. I'm not entirely sure how enforcing dog violations would take away from other issues - it's not like a patrol ranger that tickets someone for having their dog running around not under control can't do anything else on their trip. It's not like rangers checking for permits can't cite someone for an illegal fire ring or campsite.

I actually reported a group that left food and trash laying around their campsite in McClure Meadow once to the ranger there (Dario iirc) a few years back. He knew the site but didn't care because he'd packed out enough garbage and told me that he'd just pick things up the next day, so it seems like some of the older rangers get somewhat (understandably) jaded about enforcing regulations. It's also iirc a bear can only area and they were using traditional hangs, which didn't bother him.

You might feel differently on the importance of the issue if you'd been threatened twice and attacked once by an off-leash dog (thankfully successfully fought off with trekking poles) in the backcountry.

I do agree that a $150 fine seems rather paltry.

@balzaccom situations like that are part of why I'd like for dogs to be restrained within x feet of people, or at least have it in writing that dog owners are required to restrain their dogs when requested. Not that gets anywhere to 100% utility, but in that case it seems like an aggressive dog that was called back would be a reasonable time to ask someone to hold it as you went past.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=22503#p174831 is my take - obviously theory crafting and I have no control over it etc etc. I figure it doesn't hurt to give feedback, nor to explore community norms on behavior.