[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AT-L] Re: [AT-L] Why no dogs in GSMNP?

>>Does anyone know WHY and HOW "they" managed to prohibit dogs in the park?
>>After all, the entire rest of the 2,000+ miles of the AT does allow them.
>Because it's a National Park and no dogs are allowed on *any* backcountry
>trail in *any* national park. And the reason probably has to do with what
>would happen if you *did* open trails up. Who is to say who is a
>*responsible* dog owner and who's not? How's the park service going to
>monitor that one?

Micheal, I am not attacking you personally here. Rather, I am using your
post to vent a frustration I have been long feeling with many people I have
known (some of them wilderness 'professionals').

My response to the above is "how do you know who is a drunk driver and who
is not?" You certainly don't take everyones car away! When you apply a rule
on your behalf you impose a loss of freedom on others. And the world
becomes alittle tighter for all of us. We all feel a bit more squeezed in.

We live with drunk driving deaths. And we realize that we will have to face
the idea of comforting those who realize a loss because of it. But we do
live with it. Why? Because we know that to take our cars away implies a
loss of freedom.  And we value that freedom. And so instead of taking away
cars, we find another way... like more severe penalties.

Freedom is what it all comes down too. Though we have a few bad apples out
there, we need the freedom of environment to turn out the really good
apples too. We need to learn to live with each other... and that means
putting up with things we don't like (aka, drunk driving deaths and dogs on
the trail).

I say we can live with a little dog sh*t on the trails.

BTW, I am not a dog owner.