# Hiking with Dogs or Not?



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2007)

OK, we may have had this discussion before...can't recall, but we need some discussion in this room.  

Several years back, Backpacker magazine ran an article that discussed the pros and cons to hiking with dogs and if it should be allowed.  The arguments broke down pretty much 50/50...with many folks saying that dogs create waste, scare wildlife, and can be a problem on the trails around other people, and others saying that dogs are great for helping people, for company, and in some cases for hauling supplies!  

So what do YOU think?  Should dogs be allowed on hiking trails?  Should some trails be dog free?  And do you hike with a dog and why?  

Join in the conversation...cast your vote and post your thoughts.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 3, 2007)

I'm a dog owner and I voted maybe.  My dogs are great on a hike.  We typically leave them off leash.  The second we see people the dogs get called back and leashed.  But between the dog park and hiking I have seen some people who can not control their dog.  Not cleaning up is bad enough but my wife has been taken out by the leash of a dog while running one morning.  I wouldn't say its the majority, but there always seems to be a dog owner who has no clue and ruins it for other people.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jul 3, 2007)

I hike with my dog, he's only a 5 month old pup though, hiking the northern greens and westmore area mid week we don't usually see many people, but he is being trained to follow me, I will let him out front occasionally but mostly just to work on his sit and stay,  I will stop when we do run across people and make him sit, its still a big deal for him because it happens so infrequently, I make it a point to not let us bother anyone's hike, personally hiking with olly is one of the most rewarding times for both of us - and if the human counterparts to the dog on the trail or in the camp are aware there is no reason to not have the dog


----------



## threecy (Jul 3, 2007)

Other.  In certain places, maybe ban dogs...other places require a lease.  I'd say about 95% of the dogs I've seen while hiking have been very well behaved - there's no reason they should be banned.


----------



## Paul (Jul 3, 2007)

This is a lot like a discussion I was involved in regarding use of multi-use paths like the Rails to Trails.

Bottom line for me is, its not the bicycles, blades, dogs, etc... its the people using/taking them. Some folks think that paths should be for walking/hiking only because they ran into some inconsiderate ass who nearly took them out on their bike, or were accosted by their dog etc... I have no problems with bikes on paths (I ride mine there) nor with dogs (I take mine as well, 6 month old Brittany) however, I am aware and considerate of others. If I'm riding, and I come upon some walkers, I slow-down and make sure they know I'm there. If I'm walking with my wife and daughter, and dog, we move over and go single-file if others are approaching.
Problem is with the asshats who don't think that the rules of common courtesy apply to them. The ones who don't bother to control their dog, or move over when you try to pass them, or defend their "right" to walk four abreast across the entire path. Banning dogs (or bikes, or blades, etc....) won't fix any problems, as the entitled ones will still find some other way to send a dark cloud over your otherwise sunny afternoon.
Along those lines, I like what Jerry said, be a pack leader and your dog will never be a problem to others.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2007)

Wow...some great posts and views, but only two votes??!! :blink:


----------



## dmc (Jul 3, 2007)

It's not dogs that are the problem...


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 3, 2007)

I have been hiking and biking with my seven year old springer for 7 years.  He goes off in the woods does his thing and comes when I call.  For the people who dont think dogs belong on the trails I would say neither do they.
I have been reprimanded by hikers about the dog. I smile and go along with whatever there rant is.  Put the dog on the leash and take him off as soon as they are out of sight.  Grant you my dog is better behaved than mosts peoples children.  He approaches no one unless approached( or they have food).

I think all trails should be control your pet paths.  If you can not then you have to leash them.
HIKER MAN LAW


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 3, 2007)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> I say if the dog has been trained to be off lead it is ok but most people consider their dog a member of the family instead of being a member of a pack. A lot of people fail to give constant calm confident pack leadership to the dog and they let him think for himself. I can tell just by the way a person walks their dog on lead who is in control. If your dog is running around out on the trail your not in control and if your dog is following you . your the pack leader.



Someone has been watching cesar malone


----------



## Mike P. (Jul 3, 2007)

I voted other, Since you can't ban people based on their irresponsibilty as dog-owners or prevent irresponsible or criminal types from reproducing, I'm okay if there are some places like National Parks, BSP & places where private property owners can decide to be dog free.

Just like many things in life (insert your own here - driving, child rearing, dog ownership) if you would like to do these things, you have a responsiblity to take good care of your dog or child (or operate you car, handle your gun safely)  you don't have a right to be a nuisance to others.  

If you must hike where no dogs are allowed, there are those places, if you must hike with your dog, there are those places too.  Some are friendly to dogs then others.  Dogs don't bother me, I'm bigger than they are.


----------



## dmc (Jul 3, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> For the people who dont think dogs belong on the trails I would say neither do they.



What about the 75% of dog owners that do not train their dogs...  Cause I don't think they should be on the trail...

Does that mean I can only hike 25% of the time?


----------



## andyzee (Jul 3, 2007)

Live free or die! 

There's far too much government control as it is.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2007)

Only six votes???

And I see that AZ has changed his avatar for the THIRD time today :blink:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 4, 2007)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> He is probably trying to soften his image .. floats like a butterfly and .. :smash:



Well now he has a cyclops of sorts...


----------



## Skier75 (Jul 4, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> I'm a dog owner and I voted maybe.  My dogs are great on a hike.  We typically leave them off leash.  The second we see people the dogs get called back and leashed.  But between the dog park and hiking I have seen some people who can not control their dog.  Not cleaning up is bad enough but my wife has been taken out by the leash of a dog while running one morning.  I wouldn't say its the majority, but there always seems to be a dog owner who has no clue and ruins it for other people.



That's pretty much our take on it as well. We also have a dog. Sometimes she comes and sometimes she doesn't, that all depends upon where we go. Some places just don't allow dogs.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Live free or die!
> 
> There's far too much government control as it is.



Git 'r done!


----------



## smitty77 (Jul 5, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> I'm a dog owner and I voted maybe.... I wouldn't say its the majority, but there always seems to be a dog owner who has no clue and ruins it for other people.


I voted maybe as well.  I always keep the dog on a leash because she can't be trusted off of it.  I know my dogs social limitations and take steps to be sure she doesn't ruin anyone else's day.  When I see other hikers approaching I pull the dog and myself off the trail at the safest location to do so, even backtracking downhill if necessary.  She has a hard time controlling her excitement (she's a purebred sleddog), but I do my best to keep her sitting and calm until the other party passes or waves us by.  I've come across countless other dog owners who _think_ they have control of their dog off-lead, only to find their recall commands have no effect when Mika and I come along.  I often wonder how many other hikers get subjected to this unwanted behavior on the trails.

What really irks me is people who have no regard for "leash-rules" at places like Wachusett.  Agree with it or not, the rule is there for a reason and if enough complaints are made regarding off-leash dogs we could very well see an outright ban on pooches in the state park.

There are certain places where dogs should not be allowed, and Monadnock is a prime example.  Assume:
10% of all hikers to visit the mountain own dogs (conservative)
10% of those are poor/negligent owners (again conservative)
The "dog owners" only bring 1 dog
1 dog will only negatively affect one hiker's day.
100,000 people climb the mountain each year (I've heard numbers close to double this).

If my reasoning is correct, we would have 1,000 negative incidents with dogs each year (collision/trips, attacks, harassments).  This number could skyrocket if the out-of-control dogs affect more than one hiker on a busy weekend.  In places such as this, I can see why an all-out ban is enacted.  However, I try to do my part to make sure more locations are not added to the list.

A good and civil thread so far.


----------



## MRGisevil (Jul 9, 2007)

I voted YES! however, my YES! is contingent on the user. There are far too many people out there who are really stupid (yes, stupid owners, not stupid dogs!) and don't properly educate themselves about canine behavior AND don't properly educate their dog. 

If the dog has a spot-on recall and comes back to you EACH AND EVERY SINGLE time it's called. Absolutely let it off leash to walk the trail with you and be free to investigate the territory as you go. Recall is important for several reasons:

1. If other people don't want your dog approaching them you can call it back.
2. If the dog is wandering away from you.
3. If the dog is approaching something that is potentially harmful to them.

 If you haven't taught your dog to listen to you (and yes, it's your job to teach the dog to listen, not the dog's) then it's your responsibility to keep your dog on a leash or keep the dog at home when you go hiking.


----------



## Greg (Jul 9, 2007)

Andyzee option? :blink: Wrong forum, TTB... :roll:


----------



## pedxing (Jul 15, 2007)

I went with the "maybe" option - but a qualified "yes" would be more precise, but I didn't want to endores the "should" or the "right" of someone to tak their dog.  I lean more to towards the idea that its a privelege.  

If your dog is capable of consistently behaving appropriately on the trail, then bring your dog if your dog will enjoy it.  Some dogs aren't ready and some never will be ready.  And when you do take your dog on the trail - behave responsibly and take responsibility for your dog.  I hiked with some dear friends, but they insisted on taking an aggressive and ill behaved dog on the trail without taking the necessary steps to keep it under control.  I had to decide not to hike with them anymore.   Irresponsible dog owners are responsible for many of those who hate to see a dog on the trail


----------



## una_dogger (Jul 16, 2007)

Yes if the dog is trailable and the trail is doggable.

And please don't get me started on Cesar Milone....


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 16, 2007)

una_dogger said:


> Yes if the dog is trailable and the trail is doggable.
> 
> And please don't get me started on Cesar Milone....



Get started.  I know he has is lovers and haters.  I've watched a handful of episodes and read most of his book.  I'm not a lover or hater, I'm just curious to hear what others think of his methods.


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 16, 2007)

I voted maybe.    It truly comes down to the dog owner.    I've hiked with people who put a lot of time into training their dog.   Dogs that are told to "Stay" do just that.   Dogs that are told to "wait" do just that.   A well behaved dog on the trail with a well intentioned owner are for the most part the norm that I have run into on trails.   All it takes, though, is one idiot who has no respect for other hikers, dogs and general trail sense to ruin it for the good-owners.   Far more people will remember a bad encounter and pass it along than a good encounter.   That's the sad part.....


----------



## una_dogger (Jul 16, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> Get started.  I know he has is lovers and haters.  I've watched a handful of episodes and read most of his book.  I'm not a lover or hater, I'm just curious to hear what others think of his methods.




He's basically got zip in terms of training/apprenticeship and experience and basically he's been skyrocketed to stardom by Oprah Winfrey/others. 

I've watched nearly every episode and I see "shutdown" over stressed dogs who are for the most part avoiding him and who knows what they are actually learning.  Managing a situation does not equal training. The dogs are learning nothing, the humans are learning nothing, Natl Geo is selling lots of advertising spots.

Whether its kids or dogs, it doesn't take much to make a clueless owner/parent think you are doing something miraculous. 

Milan is not a trainer, he is not endorsed by any trainer or animal welfare group anywhere in the world, and has mostly been denounced by all. Why Natl Geo is promoting him is a huge disappointment to me.

That 'nuf for ya?


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 17, 2007)

una_dogger said:


> He's basically got zip in terms of training/apprenticeship and experience and basically he's been skyrocketed to stardom by Oprah Winfrey/others.
> 
> I've watched nearly every episode and I see "shutdown" over stressed dogs who are for the most part avoiding him and who knows what they are actually learning.  Managing a situation does not equal training. The dogs are learning nothing, the humans are learning nothing, Natl Geo is selling lots of advertising spots.
> 
> ...




I have watched a lot of his episodes and I think the guy has a lot of valid points.  I have seen him work with dogs that has the same traits as mine.  I have worked using some of his techniques and they worked.  
Being denounced by all is sour milk.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 17, 2007)

una_dogger said:


> He's basically got zip in terms of training/apprenticeship and experience and basically he's been skyrocketed to stardom by Oprah Winfrey/others.
> 
> I've watched nearly every episode and I see "shutdown" over stressed dogs who are for the most part avoiding him and who knows what they are actually learning.  Managing a situation does not equal training. The dogs are learning nothing, the humans are learning nothing, Natl Geo is selling lots of advertising spots.
> 
> ...




That is plenty.  ;-) I wasn't challenging your statement, I was curious as to what your stance was.  I agree on you point about him not having proper training/apprenticeship.  But at the same time I've spoken with professional dog trainers who think that Milan's methods are acceptable.  

And I agree with you on the Oprah thing.  Just because Oprah or Will and Jada Pinket Smith (he mentioned them in his book) rave about Milan doesn't make him a world renowned expert at dog training.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 17, 2007)

una_dogger said:


> Yes if the dog is trailable and the trail is doggable.



To stay on topic, if I got this response from a hiker who I asked the question that is this thread's topic, I would be glad to share the trail with both owner and canine.

You get it.


----------

