[at-l] Dogs (and Shelters)

[thornel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (W F Thorneloe)]

The logic comes from the idea that dogs and people don't belong in the
woods, but that people often NEED to get to the woods. Building a few
structures that make it easier to get flatlanders into the woods has value.
This is a good way to introduce them to the woods and the many benefits of
short and long distance hiking. Poorly behaved dogs and dog owners make for
fewer hikers.

While there is a great deal of emphasis placed on thru-hiking and long
distance hiking on this list, it is the weekender and section hiker that
uses much more of the AT's resources and requires more support. They also
pay more for trail maintenance and participation in trail support. I
frankly don't see a reason to respect someone differentially based on their
choice of shelter or quadruped companionship, so long as they manage to
practice LNT - including their impact on other hikers. A skilled LD hiker
with or without a dog can help promote trail usage and maintenance,
including the values of a relative wilderness. (Any place 15 minutes from
an ICU bed is wilderness to me.)

I think your fear of dogs being banned on the AT is about as unlikely as
anyone paving the AT. This is about as lame as the argument that if they
ban guns, only criminals will have guns. No one plans to register your dog
or take it's leash from your cold dead hands.

OrangeBug

At 02:13 PM 2/26/03 -0500, Wilderness1 wrote:
>Back to the original point that many say DOGS don't belong in the woods,
>but the same people feel man made structures do. Where's the logic?