Still hiking with dogs

Heard this on NPR this morning.

Happy Tails: A hike in the backcountry with a well-mannered dog

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Happy-Tails-A-hike-in-the-backcountry-with-a-1061408.php

________________________________________________________________

For more on hiking dogs here is a long earlier thread:

http://www.trailspace.com/forums/backcountry/topics/86866.html

And here is a earlier thread warning of the hazards of stagnet water relating to dogs:

http://www.trailspace.com/forums/backcountry/topics/98736.html

I agree that it is important that dogs are activated by participating on a hike with their "family", but it must be in the context of not infringing with other hikers. Here in Norway we have for about ten years ago concentrated all the legislation regarding dogs into an own law, the dog law. One rearkable comment in the dog-law is that it states that dogs that are well adopted to society have a right to persue their natural instinct of running free. The free time is from 21.august till 1.april. About 90% of all municipalities in Norway has accepted the law and not applied for any of the exceptions that are possible.

When I go for a hike I have the dog with me all the time, both as a companion and as a help in carrying or pulling pulk. All our national parks accept dogs all year, with just a few exceptions regarding short periods for wildlife. Also in the huts here in the northern part of our country the acceptance for dogs is high. Either dogs are allowed in, or in case there are two huts at a place one is allowed for dogs the other may not. But dogs are never allowed to sleep in the beds!

The rules that dogs must obey are quite simple. Short version: They must not be agressive against people, and must not be agressive against other dogs either. They must obey when called to the owner. Dogs that does not comply with these rules must be kept in a line all year. I'm convinced that if such rules were tried in US the acceptance for dogs would increase. Even I am nervous when an agressive dog comes on the trail, no problem with those with a friendly wagging tail.

Nice.  It's good to see that cool heads prevail some where in the world and that some know how to compromise so that the vast majority ends up being happy.  I'd like to see that here in America but I believe that America is at this time not the land of compromise but the land of polarization.  I hope that one day we in American can re-learn the art of compromise instead of fighting so that we can finaly get some things done that are positive.

This sounds too enlightened.  Typically the way things are handled when there is an issue here is they pass a law which penalizes the majority for the stupidity of the minority.  So for example, good owners are required to leash their dogs at all times even though their dog is not aggressive and is under verbal control.  Much of this is caused in my opinion by an environment where people can sue one another over anything.  For example, a family is suing the Federal gov't in my state because a mountain goat at one of the national parks gored a hiker.  I can just imagine what would happen if the park allowed dogs to be off leash and someone got bitten.    

Yes I have commented before regarding the US rules for lawsuit. They are beyond my comprehension, and I believe I'm not alone either. Frankly I think these are one of the main obstacles that affects the economy and is an hinderance in the continuing pursuit of a better life for the community. Guess who gets the bill for these suits? Correct, the average american via increase in the insurance policies, more expensive services aso.

Things can work out.  Cooler heads need to keep talking:like those on TS:)

One thing I like about hiking & backpacking in the wilderness areas in national parks is that there are no dogs allowed on the trails. r,d&h :-)

bheiser:  I agree not all areas are suitable for dogs even if the dogs are well trained etc.  Either due to the fragile nature of the area or over use, dogs just might not be a good fit.  However, i think this topic raises a bigger question about how things are public lands are managed in this country.   Do we want those lands to be controlled by  a system of draconion laws or do we want a system run by people reaching compromises?  I think the latter is tougher to do but makes for a better system of parks.  

Please sign in to reply