# Dogs at Westwater



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

I have no problem with dogs at the ramp as long as they are managed and friendly. Know your own dog and how it interacts with other dogs and people. Let BLM create a regulation that says the ranger can require a dog to be leashed if he/she deems it necessary. That is a little more work for the BLM, but we are out there to enjoy the river and the canyons and after all it is their job to facilitate that. Yeah that will make the BLM job a little more active, but only for the bad dog owners. The duty of the public is not to make the land managers' jobs easier, the duty of the land managers is to facilitate maximum freedom for the public while protecting the resource.

The only real issue here is poop. Owners who do not curb their dogs are the problem and they will ruin it for everyone. I don't agree with the leash regulation, but unless you have a dog who will poop on command like my friend's border collie, then how do you know where your dog pooped when he was off-leash?

I hate over-regulation of our public lands and rivers, but the way this is going, the idiots are going to screw everyone out of a good deal. My solution is to impose a huge fine on people who don't curb their dogs. Start at $1,000 and if it doesn't work, jack it up geometrically. That will fix 99% of the poop problem and responsible dog owners will be able to enjoy the resource unencumbered by overbearing regulation. BLM should put the onus where it belongs - on those who are not respectful of the resource and other users - and leave the responsible public alone.


----------



## Modog1 (May 26, 2007)

*Boarder Collie*

Are you talking about Ed the Boarder Collie?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I know dog owners love their dogs and feel compelled to take them everywhere, but C'MON! The rest of us don't need to wade thru their dogshit, nor do we share your love for your pet. Selfish, self-involved dog owners are their (and their pets') own worst enemies. Dogs chasing wildlife and crapping where they shouldn't are reasons enough in my mind to keep dogs out of environmentally sensitive places. But reasoning with (some) dog owners is nearly impossible.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Caspian,

Let me start by saying I'm probably as libertarian as you are in most of my thinking. I really don't think we're very far apart, it at all on this.

But I don't like having to navigate around dog poop at the ramp or clean it up where I want to put my kitchen in a camp downriver. That's happened to me many times in my more than 200 trips down there. Plus, I've seen dogfights at the ramp, and other inarguably problematic behavior on the part of dogs there and at Cisco. 

(And of course it's a different issue, but there are the fools who tie their dog to the bumper of the truck at Cisco on a hot August day, with nothing but a pan of water that they can't get to when the line gets tangled around a bush. leaving them stranded in the hot sun where a lion or other predator can get to them. I've seen that more than once as well.)

Fact is, leash regulations are already in effect in the WW locations we're talking about, and owners are already required to clean up after their dogs. 

My point is simple. It's the lack of compliance with those common-sense, and commonly-adopted-in-public-areas regulations that is going to lead to more regulation -- which both you and I deplore. It is, regrettably, the way the world works. 

And this Lake Powell regulation is a sign of things to come. Regardless of what you think an agency's duty is, it will make what it considers reasonable regulations, within its resources, to achieve its statutory goals. In this case, they are to preserve the resource and also maintain public order.

And in any case, do you really want a volunteer ranger checking people in on a busy Saturday morning authorized to issue $1,000 tickets? Or would you rather they call a sworn BLM officer or a Grand County Sheriff deputy in from 60 miles away to write a boater up for a dog off leash? Come on..... 

I think BLM does an excellent job managing WW. More importantly perhaps, most boaters are responsible in the way they travel through this beautiful little canyon. More than a thousand folks go down there every week in prime season. It's a testimony to their ability to comply with reasonable regulations that Westwater's camps and the canyon itself are so clean and wilderness-like. Why can't they be equally compliant and considerate with regard to dogs as well? 

The reason I posted this was to illustrate that the DOI has provided Moab BLM with a precedent and a rationale to impose new restrictions (or a total ban) if problems continue. Forewarned is forearmed.

I don't care for it either. I mean, isn't it a concern when rules like this can go into effect to accomodate people, "who may not want the pet in their immediate presence but cannot otherwise avoid it or who may feel the pet is in their way unnecessarily". That gets down to something pretty close to "some people might be afraid of, or just plain don't like dogs, so we'll ban all of them." And while there may be other more legitimate concerns, that one that really catches the critical eye.

Let's all hope it never comes to that, because next thing you know, you might find there are people out there who are afraid of beer drinkers......

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

VP, GCPBA


----------



## TF (Sep 8, 2005)

There are already regulations in place for dogs on BLM Lands. These can be found under 43 CFR. 

In all developed sites on BLM Administered Lands, and yes, WW Put-in and Take-outs are considered developed sites, pets are required to be physically restrained. 

Also, Grand County, Utah, which WW is in, also has a county wide leash law already in place, so technically, all dogs in WW need to be on a leash.

WW also has stipulations in place that require dog owners to pack out their dog's waste. This carries a minimum fine of $175.00 and as with all BLM Regluations a max. fine of $100,000 and 10 years Jail. And all BLM Regulations, with the acception of those that fall under the Taylor Grazing Act are also Class A Mis.

So, dog owners need to start taking responsibility, OR the WW River Rangers will call out the BLM Law Enforcement Rangers, who will take action and start issuing citations to dog owners. The Law Enforcement Rangers already show up at the River put-in and take-out and are on patrol on the river... so lets keep them happy and follow the regulations that are already in place.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi TF,

Thanks for a more precise explanation of the current status of dogs at WW and in the other relevant jurisdictions. 

The point of my original post was that at Lake Powell, they have completely closed many areas to dogs, and that the DOI evidently has developed a rationale (one that seems pretty broad) that also could be applied to ban them entirely at WW. Of course, any ban would also have to apply up at Loma as well, since an awful lot of dogs seen at WW are with trips taking out from a run down Ruby/Horsethief.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA


----------



## thogan (Jan 25, 2005)

Yeah damn ******* dogs shooting up cans of propane and leaving whiskey bottles as kindlin in the campfire pits. I love dogs and have probably waded through the shit humans have left behind more than dogs(cept for that 200lb newfie next door). As long as dogs arent being aggressive I dont see them as a detriment to most outdoor endeavours, we bring ours most places she is allowed. We do a lot hiking 14ers as well as boating and I see a lot of misuse of our lands probably not caused by dogs.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I think this is a very good point.



thogan said:


> I see a lot of misuse of our lands probably not caused by dogs.


For some reason people seem to be annoyed, but accept the abuse that people inflict on our public lands. We may curse and whine, but what do you do? Ban idiots? Dogs seem to suffer from more of a "no tolerance" attitude and get booted out for problems that are, in fact, caused by the owners. The dog isn't going to pick up its poop, it is the owners responsibility. For those that don't want them in their immediate vicinity, I again think that is a person/owner problem, but hey, I don't want to listen to your blaring music, motors, generators, or kids screaming.

Dogs sure take a toll on desert soil though.

I think dog lovers/owners need to be vocal and active. With the huge surge of dog parks in the us, we are not the minority. A couple of complaints a year does not justify banning. Speak your mind, disagree, support allowing dogs if you agree.

My personal belief is that often the natural resource is a diversionary tactic to justify banning them by people who just don't like dogs, and having them around. Sure, some places it is valid, but up here in Montana we have one permit river that requires leashes on the whole river. Problem here is annoying people, and livestock (chasing of which is already grounds for being shot). No more natural resource impact up here from dogs than people tearing around. So it is lack of tolerance more than anything, and irresponsible owners. 

Why will they gladly enforce certain laws, but others seem to be too much of a bother?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I enjoy dogs, but my question is WHY do so many dog owners think they are ENTITLED to "share" their dog experience with the world? That strikes me as incredibly self-centered. One person's lovable, loved pet is another person's wildlife-chasing, freely crapping and yapping mutt.

Dogs can be wonderful companions, no question. But the whole world doesn't share that need or desire. 





lhowemt said:


> I think this is a very good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

DurangoSteve said:


> I enjoy dogs, but my question is WHY do so many dog owners think they are ENTITLED to "share" their dog experience with the world? That strikes me as incredibly self-centered. One person's lovable, loved pet is another person's wildlife-chasing, freely crapping and yapping mutt.
> 
> Dogs can be wonderful companions, no question. But the whole world doesn't share that need or desire.


I don't mean to excuse people who let their dogs run wild, especially in busy areas such as put ins, or to excuse yapping, or inappropriate pooping, or especially chasing wildlife. T

But, we are entitled to share the world with everyone, there are many behaviors that we don't want others to share with us, but tolerance is important, as we are all different. there are good dogs and dog owners out there, but I think many people who don't like dogs don't notice them. they only notice the few bad seeds. I don't see it as any different than you wanting to have strict control of your life by keeping dogs away from you. That is inherently selfish too. If you have such a strong aversion to all things you don't like, stay home.

Lots of things in life are great to some, and disliked by others. I don't get why people feel so righteous in complaining about dogs when there are so many other wonderful things to complain about.


----------



## oarboatman (Jul 20, 2006)

*Save the Dog's Ban the iditots*

I spoke with Alvin a few weeks ago about the dog issue and he asked for alternatives to baning dogs. I believe that the awnser is simple. If I was a ranger it would go something like this. 
If you dog is off leash or barking at the put in:
1) A firm warning and the pamphlet with the consquences for not stoping the behavior.
2) If the behavior continues the dog owner is disallowd from the trip
3) If the behavior continues or the TL does not support the rangers decision then the trip is cancled 
4) Repeat offender would be black balled for 1 year. 

I bet you $20 that it would only take a couple getting send home from the put in to get the msg that if you don't control your beast that you are not welcome a WW.

There are plenty of places in the world the dogs are not allowed. Such as the NPS. If you are a hater then go boat there. 

Save the dogs


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I'm not really interested in a prolonged pissing match over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of dogs in the wild. Clearly we disagree. Tolerance is good and noble. Forcing the rest of the world to share the "joy" of one's pooch is utterly selfish. To think that the rest of the world should tolerate somebody's pet in a wild setting is absurd. Do I think we need the Doggy Cops to come down hard on self-absorbed pet owners? Nope. I just wish those folks gave some little shread of consideration to the rest of the world. But they don't. They believe that we should "tolerate" their selfishness.




lhowemt said:


> I don't mean to excuse people who let their dogs run wild, especially in busy areas such as put ins, or to excuse yapping, or inappropriate pooping, or especially chasing wildlife. T
> 
> But, we are entitled to share the world with everyone, there are many behaviors that we don't want others to share with us, but tolerance is important, as we are all different. there are good dogs and dog owners out there, but I think many people who don't like dogs don't notice them. they only notice the few bad seeds. *I don't see it as any different than you wanting to have strict control of your life by keeping dogs away from you. That is inherently selfish too. If you have such a strong aversion to all things you don't like, stay home.*
> 
> Lots of things in life are great to some, and disliked by others. I don't get why people feel so righteous in complaining about dogs when there are so many other wonderful things to complain about.


----------



## oarboatman (Jul 20, 2006)

DurangoSteve said:


> I'm not really interested in a prolonged pissing match over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of dogs in the wild. Clearly we disagree. Tolerance is good and noble. Forcing the rest of the world to share the "joy" of one's pooch is utterly selfish. To think that the rest of the world should tolerate somebody's pet in a wild setting is absurd. Do I think we need the Doggy Cops to come down hard on self-absorbed pet owners? Nope. I just wish those folks gave some little shread of consideration to the rest of the world. But they don't. They believe that we should "tolerate" their selfishness.



Steve,
Sounds to me like you should do laps on Deso, Cat, Gates, and Yampa. Perhaps someday I'll just have to trade in my dog for a horse since they are permited most places and evidently do so much less damage, and leave so much less shit for people to wade through. Maby that is why I bought a 22' motor rig... to fit the horse.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

DurangoSteve said:


> I'm not really interested in a prolonged pissing match


If you're not, why are you still pissing and moaning?


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

layoff steve he has very good points. i hope the BLM comes down on your dog lovin asses and bans em to the moab daily.


----------



## stumpster (Jul 23, 2006)

> Why will they gladly enforce certain laws, but others seem to be too much of a bother


True story!

Dogs not allowed!! But if you illegally cross are boarders you will be given a home!???!
Today's rationalization is just FUBAR!!


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

<sigh> I'm done. The content of the flaming posts proves my point: dog obsessionists "believe" they are "entitled" to share their doggy bonding experience with the rest of the world. That's sad. That's selfish. Oh well. Hope someday they figure it out.


----------



## stumpster (Jul 23, 2006)

You do make a valid point Steve, and I do agree! My dog stays at home when I go on trips since she lacks most of the social skills necessary(hmmm much like myself imagine that)!


----------



## oarboatman (Jul 20, 2006)

*Spent*



DurangoSteve said:


> <sigh> I'm done.
> 
> If the above were true you wouldn't have to post it. And Thank you sooo much for sharing. You Seem to have an obsession with sharing you opinion and "belive" you are "entitled" to bash all dogs and owners that don't share your opinion. Sounds like you'll make a great river ranger someday. And I'm Spent!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Thanks. I'm not trying to stir the pot or pick any fights here, just trying to get folks to THINK about how their actions affect others. It's too bad this thread has deteriorated. This is a great forum for people who love rivers and the wild places. We all value the time we get to spend in these sacred places. Giving more thought to how we do that, and how we impact these places SHOULD be on all of our minds.

Peace.



stumpster said:


> You do make a valid point Steve, and I do agree! My dog stays at home when I go on trips since she lacks most of the social skills necessary(hmmm much like myself imagine that)!


----------



## ecarlson972 (Apr 24, 2007)

DurangoSteve read this now and see how it sounds!


I know parents love their kids and feel compelled to take them everywhere, but C'MON! The rest of us don't need to wade thru their litter, nor do we share your love for your kid. Selfish, self-involved parents are their (and their kid's) own worst enemies. kids chasing wildlife and crapping where they shouldn't are reasons enough in my mind to keep kids out of environmentally sensitive places. But reasoning with (some) parents is nearly impossible.

Now I think we all know that is wrong but the point is tolerance. Some people dont like kids, some people dont like rafters and some people dont like kayakers. So does that mean we should ban all of them from the river too? No we tolerated them and go out and have some fun.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Great Pic Eric, adorable dog.

On what I think was the main gist of this thread, I think there is a lot of threat to taking dogs places. Oarbender has a great point about horses. Not only do the trash the trails, stomp the landscape, but the "rules of the trail" are that we move out of their way so they don't freak out! So they have the highest rung, people are lower, and dogs are the lowest. With the increasing public voice of dog owners, I think we need to be vocal in support of them. Don't let one or two whiners make something of it that it is not. Let the rangers & public officials know that it is not about letting dogs in places, it is about letting PEOPLE with dogs in places. WE are not second class citizens, and deserve to recreate along with every one else. Rules will get broken as they always do, but a few complaints from one river in a year are nothing compared to the broken glass, burned out camps, and stomped around areas that idiots do.

Good point on kids, I actually enjoy kids, but they can be more of a scene than dogs. To each his own, tolerance is the key. Let's keep the public lands open to all the public!

Let your voice be heard, or you won't have a voice anymore.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I especially liked this part: "Kids chasing wildlife and crapping where they shouldn't are reasons enough in my mind to keep kids out of environmentally sensitive places." That was pretty damned funny and created some pretty hilarious mental images...

This epidemic of children crapping all over the place and chasing wildlife has GOT to end! Especially the toddlers: I've seen them run elk to exhaustion and ultimately death!

Honestly, do think that comparing children to dogs is reasonable? I recognize that dogs are "surrogate children" to many people, but they are NOT children. I think that's probably what has gotten so many dog lovers so agitated: they've confused their pets for children.

I have owned many great dogs over the years. They have brought me great joy and companionship. Their unconditional love is a wonderful thing. BUT, I long ago recognized that my love for my pets is NOT universal. It's MY love for my pets. This is the critical distinction I am trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make to dog owners. Oh well.




ecarlson972 said:


> DurangoSteve read this now and see how it sounds!
> 
> 
> I know parents love their kids and feel compelled to take them everywhere, but C'MON! The rest of us don't need to wade thru their litter, nor do we share your love for your kid. Selfish, self-involved parents are their (and their kid's) own worst enemies. kids chasing wildlife and crapping where they shouldn't are reasons enough in my mind to keep kids out of environmentally sensitive places. But reasoning with (some) parents is nearly impossible.
> ...


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

The doggy pic looks like Red Canyon below Flaming Gorge. Awesome place. 




ecarlson972 said:


> DurangoSteve read this now and see how it sounds!
> 
> 
> I know parents love their kids and feel compelled to take them everywhere, but C'MON! The rest of us don't need to wade thru their litter, nor do we share your love for your kid. Selfish, self-involved parents are their (and their kid's) own worst enemies. kids chasing wildlife and crapping where they shouldn't are reasons enough in my mind to keep kids out of environmentally sensitive places. But reasoning with (some) parents is nearly impossible.
> ...


----------



## kellip (Mar 1, 2007)

I get your point Steve. I'm a dog owner and find myself appologizing to others if I feel my dog is at all intruding in their space. I do my best to pick up after her and keep her near me, because I know some people just don't like her. She doesn't bark, she stays close to me, ignores most people and gets along with most dogs. That's my responsibility as a dog owner and nothing is more irritating at the take-out/putin/camp or where ever then people allowing their dogs to bark non-stop, poop in the middle of the ramp, play fetch in the way of people trying to launch. 

In some respect I think the comparison to kids is actually pretty fair. People allow their kids to run wild in the parking lots, shoot squirt guns at the putin, and scream as obnoxiously as a barking dog. Clearly I understand that dogs aren't kids, but to some people they are more annoying and a bigger pest. There are good kids and there are good dogs, but unfortunately it's the bad ones that we notice.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

This is obviously an emotional topic for you.

What do you think of PEOPLE who don't use groovers on river trips; but rather just crap wherever they choose? Or how about obnoxious drunks who harass people and torment wildlife? What about people who don't stay on trails in fragile desert environments, crush cryptobiotic soil and accelerate soil erosion?

Should we be "tolerant" of these folks? Should we accept their behavior as acceptible? Should we take a "live and let live" approach with them?





lhowemt said:


> Great Pic Eric, adorable dog.
> 
> On what I think was the main gist of this thread, I think there is a lot of threat to taking dogs places. Oarbender has a great point about horses. Not only do the trash the trails, stomp the landscape, but the "rules of the trail" are that we move out of their way so they don't freak out! So they have the highest rung, people are lower, and dogs are the lowest. With the increasing public voice of dog owners, I think we need to be vocal in support of them. Don't let one or two whiners make something of it that it is not. Let the rangers & public officials know that it is not about letting dogs in places, it is about letting PEOPLE with dogs in places. WE are not second class citizens, and deserve to recreate along with every one else. Rules will get broken as they always do, but a few complaints from one river in a year are nothing compared to the broken glass, burned out camps, and stomped around areas that idiots do.
> 
> ...


----------



## ecarlson972 (Apr 24, 2007)

Durangosteve I think you are starting to get our point. Dont just hate the dogs. There not the only ones to blame! The solution is not to ban dogs, horses, drunks, etc. The solution is to better educate the people who use the land and the impact there bad behaviors have on it!!!!


----------



## ecarlson972 (Apr 24, 2007)

Oh ya you are right that is on the Green below Flaming Gorge. Awesome trip!!


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I'm sorry you think I hate dogs. I don't. I happen to enjoy dogs a lot. I simply think they are completely inappropriate in wild places.

And Red Canyon is an amazing place. Huge fish in aquarium-clear water... along with moose and otters. I'm ready to head back up there...



ecarlson972 said:


> Durangosteve I think you are starting to get our point. Dont just hate the dogs. There not the only ones to blame! The solution is not to ban dogs, horses, drunks, etc. The solution is to better educate the people who use the land and the impact there bad behaviors have on it!!!!


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

I encourage my dogs to chase wildlife, I think it's pretty amusing. After all it's their hertitage, as well as the wildlife that is being chased.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

DurangoSteve said:


> This is obviously an emotional topic for you.


DUH! As it clearly is for you too. I sense a lot of anger......


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

lets use a bit of logic here shall we. Assume every person on westwater took one dog. i am guessing that 99% of everyone including the dog lovers would not be happy with that situation. so should we have a lottery for the dogs or some committee that evaluates good dogs? the only good answer is no dogs. dont even try to compare dogs to kids that is so lame.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

You sense wrong. No anger here, just ongoing amazement at pet owners' anthropomorphizing, i.e., "don't tell me I can't take my furry 'child' everywhere I go."

There are lots of places where dogs aren't appropriate: stores, restaurants, doctors' offices, hospitals.... the list is pretty long.




lhowemt said:


> DUH! As it clearly is for you too. I sense a lot of anger......


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Oh I see, you are one of THOSE kind of people, threatened by folks who choose dogs over children. 
------

That's your "logical" argument? 

What if everyone took a ferret? That wouldn't be pretty either. Especially since they would get loose and kill native fauna. Pretty logical, pretty meaningless



mania said:


> lets use a bit of logic here shall we. Assume every person on westwater took one dog. i am guessing that 99% of everyone including the dog lovers would not be happy with that situation. so should we have a lottery for the dogs or some committee that evaluates good dogs? the only good answer is no dogs. dont even try to compare dogs to kids that is so lame.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I want to take my Bengal Tiger to a baseball game. He's a good tiger. Everybody loves tigers... except uptight, grumpy people. Why can't I take my tiger everywhere I go? He's been declawed and he's a vegetarian... most of the time.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

I have both a kid and a dog and agree with Steve. There are just some places that dogs shouldn't go or shouldn't be allowed to go, i.e. dog ban, if owners are too clueless to recognize those situations. Same goes for kids - there are some places that aren't appropriate for kids. It all boils down to using common sense, thinking about the consequences of your actions (or your kid or dog) and making good decisons. 

As a dog owner, I see that some dog owners take it too damn far - _it's a dog_. Dogs and people are different yet some tend to think that they're one in the same. That's when shit gets rediculous. There are great dogs and great dog owners. But, on the flip side, there are shitty dog owners and shitty dogs too. I love to take my dog camping, rafting, fishing, etc. but put some thought into it before leaving the house to make sure that it's appropriate. I wish more people would do the same.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

The calm, rational, refreshing voice of reason... thank you!




JBL said:


> I have both a kid and a dog and agree with Steve. There are just some places that dogs shouldn't go or shouldn't be allowed to go, i.e. dog ban, if owners are too clueless to recognize those situations. Same goes for kids - there are some places that aren't appropriate for kids. It all boils down to using common sense, thinking about the consequences of your actions (or your kid or dog) and making good decisons.
> 
> As a dog owner, I too see that some dog owners take it too damn far - _it's a dog_. Dogs and people are different yet some tend to think that they're one in the same. That's when shit gets rediculous. There are great dogs and great dog owners. But, on the flip side, there are shitty dog owners and shitty dogs.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

You are absolutely right, as was discussed earlier in the thread, until Steve decided to have his little piss fest about dogs and dog owners. Attitudes like his encourage the authorities to implement bans without regard to the real issues. What you think of what people think of their dogs is irrelevant. What matters is how are the users (dog, people, kids, etc) behaving and is it appropriate? It is those kinds of bans we need to fight because, after all, 100% of people don't have a dog, and there are a lot of places completely appropriate for dogs where they aren't allowed. Plus, it is easier for authorities to just ban them than to deal with them. It is also easier for them to close trails, trailheads, campgrounds, etc. They start to take the easy way out, and we all lose. Managing people is the hardest part of any job, but it is the first thing people try to regulate out thinking it will solve problems. It doesn't, and it is just lazy management.



JBL said:


> There are just some places that dogs shouldn't go or shouldn't be allowed to go, i.e. dog ban, if owners are too clueless to recognize those situations. Same goes for kids - there are some places that aren't appropriate for kids. It all boils down to using common sense, thinking about the consequences of your actions (or your kid or dog) and making good decisons.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

lhowemt said:


> Plus, it is easier for authorities to just ban them than to deal with them.


You just hit the nail on the head. It's much, much easier to ban dogs than to try to educate folks about how to enjoy the outdoors with them in a responsible way. No question about it. 

Not sure if you know any land managers or not but they're not all lazy bums looking for an easy way out. I know a lot of local, state and federal land managers and for the most part they genuinely care about the environment but don't have the resources necessary to cater to everyone's desires, needs, special interest or issues. 

They do what they can with what the have to work with. If all dog owners were good, this wouldn't be an issue. Period.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

lhowemt said:


> Plus, it is easier for authorities to just ban them than to deal with them. It is also easier for them to close trails, trailheads, campgrounds, etc. They start to take the easy way out, and we all lose. Managing people is the hardest part of any job, but it is the first thing people try to regulate out thinking it will solve problems. It doesn't, and it is just lazy management.


Precisely why I think they should allow dogs and heavily penalize owners who don't respect other users. The previous poster who is clearly a BLM employee (technical understanding of the matter + first post = anonymous BLM employee) made some good points that alter my earlier argument. So I will lose on the leash issue because of county law, oh well. 

But I suspect the whole complication of BLM calling in the LEOs in order to cite a dog owner could be easily fixed by the BLM granting the rangers authority to issue a citation for an unruly dog. Denver parking wardens issue tickets every single day and none of them carry a badge and a gun. Those in government service have a moral and ethical duty to manage the resources FOR the people, not take the easy way out. Instead of saying "We can't do that because of this bureaucratic issue" I would like to see them say "Well, one priority is to protect the canyon, which is why we have to fix the dog problem, and the other priority is to help the public, who owns the canyon, to enjoy it. If the rangers can't sufficiently enforce a rule about dogs, then we should grant them the authority to write a citation for it so that we don't have to punish the majority because of a few bad apples."

While it is possible that eventually a dog ban will be necessary to protect Westwater, the solution is through incremental steps in regulation, targeted at the bad apples. If the BLM does that, via some idea like my idea of heavy fines or some other method, and dogs and dog poop are still a problem, I'll accept the necessity of a complete ban.

P.S. I also have met and/or boated with a fair number of BLM/NPS guys over the years and they are very good people in my experience. A couple are downright some of the best river people I've ever met. I don't know if those are the kind deciding on this regulation or not, so I am pushing my agenda because in my experience, gov't agencies at any level, federal, state or local, often lean towards taking the easy way out and I want to emphasize that as users, some of us want the government to remember the citizen-owners of the resource first.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

Caspian said:


> The previous poster who is clearly a BLM employee (technical understanding of the matter + first post = anonymous BLM employee) made some good points that alter my earlier argument.


Which buzzard do you think is _clearly_ the BLM employee??


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Caspian said:


> P.S. I also have met and/or boated with a fair number of BLM/NPS guys over the years and they are very good people in my experience. A couple are downright some of the best river people I've ever met. I don't know if those are the kind deciding on this regulation or not, so I am pushing my agenda because in my experience, gov't agencies at any level, federal, state or local, often lean towards taking the easy way out and I want to emphasize that as users, some of us want the government to remember the citizen-owners of the resource first.


I don't think it is the person on the ground not choosing to enforce the hard regs, but the powers to be, whether it is administrators, politicians, or fiscal folks who don't provide the resources to those on the ground to keep the peace with all the regs. As a public employee myself (not public land mgmt), I can relate to not having the resources to do the job the way I think it needs to be done, and having to take the easy way out sometimes. But I am not the one who decided to limit the resources. That is why it is important, not to complain to the folks on the ground, but written comments to the decision makers. Make them work for their public dollar, and make them work hard! It is our public dollar and we need to let them know what our priorities are.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

I think that would be TF on the first page. Just sounds like it was written by someone who knows an unusual amount about the matter and it's the first post. It's conjecture on my part, but I'm pretty confident in my guess. Or maybe it's a former BLM employee...

If I am correct, then it is all the more clear that dog owners need to get their collective acts together before regulation increases. I want to be able to bring my dog when I get one!


----------



## thogan (Jan 25, 2005)

I want to take my Bengal Tiger to a baseball game. He's a good tiger. Everybody loves tigers... except uptight, grumpy people. Why can't I take my tiger everywhere I go? He's been declawed and he's a vegetarian... most of the time.
Looks like this thread has taken an awful turn, dogs rule,PERIOD.....








We domesticated dogs for out of the need for companionship and for the work they do. Looks like we are the root of the problem.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

And let's not forget...let's not forget, Dude...that keeping wildlife...uh...an amphibious rodent...for, uh, domestic, you know, within the city limits...That ain't legal either.


----------



## griz (Sep 19, 2005)

YouTube - Dog Gets Hit By Man On Bike ! - Tour de France 2007


----------

