Re: [at-l] dogs in the smokies or anywhere else

[DaRedhead@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/4/00 4:05:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TOKTAADN@aol.com 
writes:

<< Would that be based on the trail maintenance they do and their input into 
the 
 political process that brought the Trail into existence?  ;-) >>

No - probably it's based on the fact that they live on this earth too, and 
give much comfort to their human companions - especially solo females.  I 
admit that bad companions - i.e. humans - cause lots of problems on the Trail 
when hiking with their pets, be they dogs, cats or ferrets <g>.  However - 
the issue of dogs on the Trail rates right up there with guns, cel phones and 
computers.  None of those things are an issue until the HUMAN involved makes 
it an issue.  Everyone talks about their "bad" experiences with dogs and 
various other things.  But you CAN run into two dogs on the same day on the 
Trail and see the difference between them, based on their human partners.  
The good ones are well behaved AND restrained/controlled to the point where 
they don't destroy hiker gear or hiker peace of mind.  The bad ones are 
allowed to roam free even though they can't even/don't know how to respond to 
"sit".  No matter how I see it, or look at it - it always comes down to the 
"people" on the Trail - and the dogs don't know any better if they haven't 
been taught.  It's people that put them there - and *their* responsibility to 
make sure the dog doesn't impact on other peoples hike - just like the cel 
phone, computer or whatever else shouldn't.  Common decency isn't so common - 
but it's more common on the Trail for the most part than it is in the rest of 
our lives.  So the people who bring dogs on the Trail should certainly have 
that right - as long as they don't let the dogs impact on *our* hike.  Fair 
enough?

To give this some perspective - after our harrowing "climb" of Lovers Leap, 
as we are sitting there just happy to be alive, this dog comes running over 
to Cassy, and wants her WELL DESERVED banana.  He was aggressive enough to 
almost snatch it from her, but disciplined enough that when I said "no" he 
backed off.  A guy came up behind him a minute or so later. (the dogs "owner" 
ha ha).  Now - as some may remember, Cas has been bitten by a dog recently, 
and needed stitches as a result.  I am proud of her, as a Mom and a hiker, 
that she defended her banana and pushed the dog away, saying "no" the same 
time I did - a true hiker, you see <g>.  But my thought, at the time, was 
"I'm gonna impale the dog with my Leki - how dare he try to take CASSYS 
banana, after what she just went thru?"  Still - the dog didn't hurt us, and 
I was more scared than Cassy, I think.  My point being - the dog was not 
misbehaving - he was doing what came natural to a hiker (dog), trying to get 
food.  His "person" should have had him on a leash.  If the dog had been on a 
leash, I wouldn't have lost ten years off my life as it barrelled towards Cas 
and tried to take her banana.  So - at that moment? Yea, I would have said 
keep the dogs off the Trail.  But really - that was only the second of bad 
experiences with dogs on the Trail - and many years of hiking and many dogs 
later, I'd say that statistically, what needs to happen is that "people" need 
to know what they're doing, and how, before they bring a dog.  If they *do* 
know what they're doing, and take care of the dog the right way - then they 
deserve to be there.  The people, I mean.  'cause the dogs are just a product 
of their "people".  Just like everything else some of us object to on the 
Trail.

The Redhead
* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================