# No Dogs on Westwater beginning March 2012



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

Just spoke to Moab BLM office- its true.....Westwater to Cisco- NO dogs.
It was supposed to post on their website last week...should be posted today sometime.
Not lookin to start the "...dogs on the river..." conversation again, just puttin out the FYI.
BUT, theres no rules against cats! so, this weekend , we're headin to the human society and gonna adpot 10 cats, get 'em pfds, and prepare for a March 3 launch....after we've all floated through Ruby Horsethief that is (no number of cat limit- only number of dogs limit there). Anyone know how to 'cat-proof' a paco?
(no, I'm not serious, and I don't abuse cats...I'm the biggest animal rights person you'll ever meet...just making a joke out of a bummer of a subject)


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

That just sucks. The BLM bureaucracy is so incredibly F'd up. No dogs, but rip apart the countryside for oil shale all you want. You can clip a cats nails, but they sharpen up really fast.


----------



## yukonjack (May 22, 2005)

*Cats are OK!*

Just also got off the phone with BLM in MOAB. It is true no dogs! I did ask if cats, birds, hamsters, rats, mice, and anything else was band and they stated NO. Only dogs. I asked why are they against dogs only? They responded that it was because of the complaints they received about dogs poop at the camps, dogs running wild at the put in and take out. I'd like to ask why we don't band the commercial company's from the river. Most of their guides are dogs, most of their clients run around at the put in and take out like lost dogs and most of their clients are to afraid to poop in the grover and just poop on land also like dogs. I've seen more human wast at the campsite then dog. This is a shame I feel that BLM should get their heads out of the dogs A$$ and and see the real problem that plagues our rivers.


----------



## t up (Dec 11, 2011)

Be careful about not talking too much shit about commercial guides! Remember were people too. I dont disagree that we should be able to bring our dogs anyware we want as your right my dogs are way more well behaved than my guests most of the time ,But dont go guide bashing!! You might find yourself in the r.o.d seeking a guides help to unf*ck your situation..As a guide myself im inclined to help everyone that needs it but have reservations about helping entitled private boaters. So once again be nice. commercial river guides have the best job in the world,Dont be jealous..


----------



## yukonjack (May 22, 2005)

Relax,

I also know a lot of private boaters that are DOGS and was just making a point about the overuse of the rivers more buy people then any animals. Mainly by commercials that take 40 people down at a time. Our group also help's anyone out when the time is needed. I can remember helping the commercial groups more then I have any private boaters. I have been in the R.O.D (room of doom) and you are more then welcome to help me crack my beer when the time comes and if the helps is need in a worse situation I thank you for it and will also return it. You are wrong about guides having the best job in the world. The best job in the world is being a trust-fund baby and living on the river setting up your own tent and only your tent.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

If all the dog owners at WestWater put in followed the rules IE kept their dogs on a leash, picked up the poop and kept the dog from barking at all hours of the night - I would agree that having your dog along was ok.

This is not the case. The dog owners that obey the rules are outnumbered big time by those who do not. I have not camped at West Water camp ground as much as a lot of you have but have been there most years over the last ten or so years. I cannot recall a time when camped there that one or more dogs ran thru our camp peeing and pooping, barking multiple times at night or what ever. I lost count of when I have seen the Ranger finally ask a dog owner whose pets were racing around the ramp peeing and pooping on peoples gear and the dog owner put on a leash but let the dog run free soon as the Ranger went back to the trailer. It is unfortunate but the only way to keep the dogs on a leash and under control is 24 hour 7 day Ranger walking the camp and ramp area. 

I am very sorry that the dog owners that do the right thing cannot take their dogs on this river trip.

I am extremely glad the Rangers stood up and started enforcing the no dog rule for the camping enjoyment for those of us who follow the rules and enjoy a bit of enjoyment on the river relatively free from outside distractions.

I am a dog owner, would like to take my leash trained Auzzie Shepard on some river trips but realize my fun having my dog along most likely will interfere with some one else's fun who is not a dog lover.

Flame away all you want, but I bet most campers at West Water put in are really glad the no dog rule is gonna be enforced.


----------



## H2UhOh (Jul 27, 2010)

okieboater, I agree 110% with you. As a dog owner myself, I avoid some areas where other people let their dogs run wild, don't pick up their poop, and basically cause these kinds of bans.

The rotten behaviors (both dogs and owners) you describe are what I've seen in all kinds of public areas, not just river camps.

I, too, completely support the restrictions, since BLM did at least TRY the other way first!


----------



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

Another FYI: Dogs are banned on Deso too...starting this year. (no more 'dog season' in the fall)
The Westwater restriction will not solve all the dog problems, do realize: there will still be plenty of canines running around at both Westwater and Cisco ......plenty of dog containing groups will be taking out after coming down R.H.T. and I highly suspect many more now putting in at Cisco...it being a float without dog restrictions. 

Can you imagine the shit show when I show up with my newly adopted 10 cats sporting their new pfds and screaming cussing husband cause the Pacos don't hold air now? And all those -now- 'Ruby Horsethief' dogs are now gonna be chasin cats and barkin and peeing and pooing everywhere anyhow.

Yeah, I've got a couple dawgs, they love the river, we pick up poo as much as possible, heck, the wolfhound even pees in the river when she's gotta go, we leash and tie up as much as possible...don't want no trouble...but I'll also admit, they're not perfect either....and neither are any of Your kids ....as much as you'ld defend 'em to the dieing breath. 
It's an owner issue...the dogs are just bein dogs. If your dog peed on my bag, shitskies, then MY dog is gonna pee on MY bag! Thanks alot! 
If my dog peed on Your bag...I'ld gladly offer to wash it off (before your own darn dog peed on it too! and hand ya a beer while I did so).

Darn shame.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

coloradogem said:


> ....and neither are any of Your kids ....as much as you'ld defend 'em to the dieing breath...


My kids have never pooped or peed at the put-in or take-out, or on anyone elses gear while at the river. That I can assure you. They have been put on a leash a time or too... LOL



coloradogem said:


> ....It's an owner issue...


Agreed.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

There's nothing that IS'NT bad ass about 10 cats in pfd's running the shit. Cats act like they don't like water but next time you're at a big rapid, chuck a cat or two in and you'll see how much they love that shit. Seriously, Paco's don't need to hold air to be comfortable anyway.


----------



## adgeiser (May 26, 2009)

t up said:


> Be careful about not talking too much shit about commercial guides! Remember were people too...


 
Ahh... it's "we're" and "anywhere", not anyware.
Seriously! Stupid Raft Guides, trying to say they are people too. 

Relax... just having fun.

For the record, i think somebody should do the cat thing... and post the pics.


----------



## pinemnky13 (Jun 4, 2007)

Bummer, but I guess that is 2 less things I need to worry about on the river. We kept them on a leash shit, when we had the old girl she would just lay there attatched to a rock or a fence and we'd tie the 2 little ones on her, Alvin used to laugh about that. Yeah we did try to find all the poop at a campsite sometimes we did sometimes we didn't. sometimes we went with people who didn't give a rats ass what their dog did and we wouldn't invite them on another trip if we had the permit.Oh well I guess my girlfreind will now oar her own boat as opposed to hanging on to the dogs and I can take whatever line I want to now. It was a good ride with the dogs while it happened.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Cats rock, they can surf like no one's business.

So now it's also the BLM rangers that suck, not just the bureaucrazy! How is it that the FS can keep their campground's dogs under control, but the BLM can't? POS

I love the dogs tied together system, use it all the time in FS campgrounds.

So what river trip in Utah is left available to dogs? Just Labyrinth?


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm with you lhowemt.....dogs don't seem to be an issue on the Main Salmon, Middle Fork, or Rogue. In many years of boating these dog friendly rivers, we've never had dog poop problems, dogs running wild or chasing wildlife, dog fights, excessive barking, etc. The river rangers & river runners seem pretty chill about the dogs. We've never a negative interaction with anyone regarding our river dog or any other group's dogs.
I'm still not buying the dog problem on Deso, since dogs were only allowed for a 3 month time period during low use season. But I've never run Deso during that time period, so I guess I can't say for certain.
The only negative experiences I've had on Westwater have been drunk stupid humans.
I'm not sure if the problem in Utah is irresponsible owners, over controlling management agencies, or complaining whiners. A mix of all three I suppose.
KJ


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

What Okieboater said should be quoted for truth. Sad but true.


----------



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

*PFD'S FOR CATS!!!! one step closer to a necessary point to prove.*

Assortment and supply of cats(local humane society): check.
Motivation to prove a point: check.
Nail file: check.

PFD's for Cats: check.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

coloradogem said:


> Assortment and supply of cats(local humane society): check.


The trip to the Humane Society would be almost as entertaining as the river trip. I'd love to see the explanation for adopting 10 cats. "I'm taking them on a river trip to prove a point. Don't worry, they'll have PFD's..." LOL


----------



## Chief Niwot (Oct 13, 2003)

Here is my kitty designing a C1 with me She can't wait to get on the water!.


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

I've been a BLM volunteer at WW for over 12 years. No matter how devoted any single-dog owner may be, at the end of the day with 8000+ people showing up each year, the dog problems persist. Basically, its the poop. Going around picking up someone else's dog's poop day after day all summer long just gets old. It's that simple. Let's remember - - BLM rangers get paid very little. Volunteers get paid even less (zero). If you haven't tried to play host at a place like WW or Sand Wash all season long year after year, and then end up picking up dog crap at the end of each day after trying to "play nice to the people" all day long, you have no idea how annoying it is. (BTW, I love dogs, but I have no problem with the restrictions, since I've actually had to deal with the dog issues, including being bitten once.) Too many people, not enough wilderness.


----------



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

BCJ......
respectfully/well put. I thank you for your services. 
I have one question: why do you stay year after year x12?

Empathetic note: I work 12 hr nights in the ER...I understand your underpaid people pleasing poopy smelling position. At the end of a day (night), and one more pee/poop soaked vomiting drunk takes a swing/spits/calls me a fat ugly bitch....somebody's goin down. Then- I get to come home to those Westwater-banned furry howling smiling faces that are asking when we're hitting the river next.

I hate cleaning up someone elses poop/blood/pee/puke and you hate cleaning up someone elses dog poop. cheers to our jobs that we choose to keep.

I hope there will be a respectful reconsideration on the Westwater dog ban. 

When theres a future ban on cats, everyone will be begging to have the dogs back to keep the feral kitties, let loose by irresponsible people, at bay. (joke)


----------



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

*Kitty designing the C1*

AJ- 
got a litter box in there? 
There aren't cat poo regulations yet, but there will be soon, esp on Boulder Creek. And I assume your river cat checklist contains a helmet for said Kitty?


----------



## Chief Niwot (Oct 13, 2003)

Cheryl,

She has a helmet, pfd, and single blade.  She is groover trained.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

lhowemt said:


> So now it's also the BLM rangers that suck, not just the bureaucrazy! How is it that the FS can keep their campground's dogs under control, but the BLM can't? POS


Laura,

It could have something to do with the fact that the USFS-managed rivers you're on up in MT and ID have a different climate that fosters vegetation to cover up that poop, and enough moisture so it'll degrade eventually. On Westwater, we've got a desert environment and that poop just kind of fossilizes out there in the cheatgrass where you can see it for the rest of the season and probably for the next couple as well. Also, please note that the BLM didn't unilaterally ban dogs last season but informed everyone that dog owners were on a probation and that, after a season of seeing how things went, a decision would be made on a ban. 

I was a volunteer ranger at Westwater last season and saw plenty of dogs off leash, on occasion, after asking the owners to leash their dogs and letting them know that dogs may be banned if they weren't controlled.

And if you're going to say the rangers suck, could you please save it until you are at the put-in going through the permit check out and tell them to their face rather than while you're sitting at your keyboard in Missoula?

I'm bummed that dogs are banned as well, but have seen enough loose dogs at WW and Cisco, dog crap at campsites, and heard enough stories about bad dogs that I understand the BLM's position.

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

*RE: Volunteering*

What Andy said too. Can't speak for everyone, but been doing the WW volunteer thing "year after year" largely for the social connections. Of course, get to run a few trips too, but many of the volunteers actually drive out, check boats, clean toilets, and do other tasks, then go home. Let's just say it's a nice diversion from City Life. And, also learned, over those years, that not all that appears to the eye is correctly understood. The BLM folks are mostly commited outdoorspeople who enjoy river life and river culture as much as we all do, but it's a dirty job, and somebody has to do it. Crowds think like crowds, and nobody sees the underlying plan in the big picture framework. Thanks for the ER service too. Most people who come there are I presume not very happy so that has to wear on you! Maybe even more than dog crap wears on the BLM and volunteers! Still say, too many people, too little wilderness, but we still have more than Italy. Trees gone there long time ago. Try Alaska. Lots of room. Yadayadayada!



coloradogem said:


> BCJ......
> respectfully/well put. I thank you for your services.
> I have one question: why do you stay year after year x12?
> 
> ...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I find it much more effective to vent on the internet, perhaps that's why so many do it. Get the bitching out here. I do 't buy your argument, put ins and heavily used places around here fossilize poop too. Winter does take care of it though.

Yes, everyone works hard and is underpaid, i know that full well living in mt. Getting rid of dogs is still a lazy cheap ass way to address a problem. It is exactly the type of solution that people hate because it just avoids the problem it does not take on the issue and correct it. In some realms of life dog access is getti g better as it is realized that it not about the dogs, it's about people with dogs and providing them a place and time to recreate too. We're like the step child of recreationalists, you've got wilderness folks, motorized folks, etc. it's dangerous to walk dogs in the winter because of trapping (lest they lose a paw or die) and indiscriminate slaughterer trappers are more important than dog owners bei g able to safely recreate in the winter.

That's what was so cool about deso's rule, it tried to balance both. Now that is gone, and anti dog rules expand. sure, there are plenty of hard working folks out there, and it's not easy but everyone knows there are plenty of sucky ones too. You've worked with them and dealt with them as the public. They seem to be the problem. Charged with managing the resource and enforcing rules and they cop out with an easy ban. Nothing awesome ever came out of the easy solution.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

lhowemt said:


> It is exactly the type of solution that people hate because it just avoids the problem it does not take on the issue and correct it. Charged with managing the resource and enforcing rules and they cop out with an easy ban. Nothing awesome ever came out of the easy solution.


Please elaborate on how this does not take care of the problem? 
From what I've read, dogs crapping and generally running loose is the problem. Their owners can't be trusted to fix the problem. Owners were given a chance to fix the problem. Owners did not fix the problem, so the BLM took action. 
Are the Rangers supposed to train people and their dogs as well as clean up after both? I love how everyone thinks their dog is somehow entitled to go where they go....and most of those people have no idea what a well trained dog looks like.


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

Well said on lame cop outs!

This is ridiculous! Picking on the dogs bc they are an easy target. Unfortunately, everyone else is represented better than dog owners. Imagine if they were to ban tobacco and alcohol? Just say they c aused too much headaches for the rangers. What about the silly motors speeding up and down the river? The massive group sizes that camp at the same heavily overused campsites every nite? The constant flow of the commerical passengers (sheep)? 

Just saying, it sure is easy to take one more freedom away from us and claim it is for the better good. I sure would like to see my government paid by the taxpayer (me and you) work a little bit and provide a solution that allow all of us to enjoy our public lands. Easiest way to do this would be to *ENFORCE the leash laws that are already in place*!!!! As well as hold permit holders accountable for all of their group's behaviors, even the 4 legged ones! However, seems like it is just easier for them to give us more than just another restriction, rather, a total ban.

If you value your personal liberty and feel you should be able to recreate with your controlled and well behaved dog, I encourage, rather beg you to please call the State BLM office in Utah and let them know how you feel.

Deputy State Director of Natural Resources: Don Banks
Ph: 801-539-4074
Email: [email protected]


----------



## ducksrus (Oct 4, 2010)

I have a pet montain lion I can bring, he likes dogs.


----------



## Moon (Jul 25, 2007)

[ I love how everyone thinks their dog is somehow entitled to go where they go....and most of those people have no idea what a well trained dog looks like.[/QUOTE]


well said....


----------



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

Moon said:


> [ I love how everyone thinks their dog is somehow entitled to go where they go....and most of those people have no idea what a well trained dog looks like.


 
well said....[/QUOTE]

When I worked in a retail store I would have to tell people their pets couldn't come inside. One upset customers replied, "I thought this was a Mountain town".


----------



## psu96 (May 9, 2006)

lhowemt said:


> I find it much more effective to vent on the internet, perhaps that's why so many do it. Get the bitching out here. I do 't buy your argument, put ins and heavily used places around here fossilize poop too. Winter does take care of it though.
> 
> Yes, everyone works hard and is underpaid, i know that full well living in mt. Getting rid of dogs is still a lazy cheap ass way to address a problem. It is exactly the type of solution that people hate because it just avoids the problem it does not take on the issue and correct it. In some realms of life dog access is getti g better as it is realized that it not about the dogs, it's about people with dogs and providing them a place and time to recreate too. We're like the step child of recreationalists, you've got wilderness folks, motorized folks, etc. it's dangerous to walk dogs in the winter because of trapping (lest they lose a paw or die) and indiscriminate slaughterer trappers are more important than dog owners bei g able to safely recreate in the winter.
> 
> That's what was so cool about deso's rule, it tried to balance both. Now that is gone, and anti dog rules expand. sure, there are plenty of hard working folks out there, and it's not easy but everyone knows there are plenty of sucky ones too. You've worked with them and dealt with them as the public. They seem to be the problem. Charged with managing the resource and enforcing rules and they cop out with an easy ban. Nothing awesome ever came out of the easy solution.


 
this is why they went ahead and enforce the ban....no accountability just poor me


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I disagree, this is not poor me. It is being disgruntled at eliminating uses of public lands, which gets worse and worse over time. Next thing you know they'll ban rafting. 

Sure, banning dogs solves ONE problem, but it creates another and does not FACE the problem by addressing the problem within the needs and wants of all users. Yes, ultimately it is the bad dog owners who are at fault, but so is enforcement when they don't address the issue in a reasonable and effective manner. The continued loss of access is a problem for everyone. It may not be a problem for you right now, but eventually you may be on the other side of the issue. If we silently allow elimination of use to be the status quo of public land problem solution, we are asking for it.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

lhowemt said:


> If we silently allow elimination of use to be the status quo of public land problem solution, we are asking for it.


So true!


----------



## twmartin (Apr 3, 2007)

I think the bottom line is that most everyone loves dogs, it is selfish dog owners that suck.

I believe it was Okieboater who observed some time ago that he was rigging at Westwater when a boat pulled in from the loma launch. While he was standing there he watched two dogs jump out and run over to his gear pile and pee all over his gear.

We as a community need to confront selfish dog owners and hold them accountable or dogs will be banned from Loma, the Dolores, Labrynth and the Moab Daily. All places where I formerly canoed with my dog.

The difficulty is tha I, for one, don't want the hassle and the pain of confronting some selfish jackass, and likely getting cussed out, while I'm on a vacation with my family.


----------



## billfrenchvail (May 6, 2008)

*Loma*

Loma now allows only 2 dogs on each permit for 2012


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

twmartin said:


> We as a community need to confront selfish dog owners and hold them accountable or dogs will be banned from Loma, the Dolores, Labrynth and the Moab Daily. All places where I formerly canoed with my dog.


Right on! I like to do this sort of stuff very nicely, picture the person I am talking to as myself. Recently I was at a trailhead which only required dogs to be on leash for the first 200 yds. I had my dogs leashed, another woman let 2 dogs out of her car and it sucks to have leashed/unleashed dogs together. I just said to her that if people don't follow the simple rule of leashing dogs at the trailhead they may make the entire park leash-only. 

This is just like a time when some kid that came racing down the road in his car and parked in the lot. He really scared me as I didn't hear him coming and he could have hit the dogs. I was fired up, but calmed down by the time I got to him and asked him to drive slower when he goes by people with dogs. He was apologetic, he said he didn't realize he was driving fast. He seemed sincere, and just a kid so hopefully it made him thoughtful. I'm sure it would have not been positive if I had reacted angry.

We have a great camp host at the Lochsa for 2 years, and she finally quit in the middle of the summer. She was directed to get people's dogs on leash, and the ranger is sort of crazy about enforcing that and not the nicest person (I know people that work with her). So certain people she's had a problem (and told repeatedly to get their dogs under control) with complained to the FS and the FS didn't support her! I was appalled, nothing like a bait and switch on people trying to keep the peace. And bad dog owners, they are just a drag on all of us. She was such a great host, early season when there was no one but boaters with dogs around, she'd let us have them run free. Mid season it was time to buckle down and we did. I can't wait until FS campgrounds don't allow dogs period......


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

twmartin said:


> The difficulty is tha I, for one, don't want the hassle and the pain of confronting some selfish jackass, and likely getting cussed out, while I'm on a vacation with my family.


Right, but it is an incredibly effective way to deal with the issue. If we all just stand aside and say nothing, and leave it solely to a volunteer or ranger, how well is that going to work? Peer pressure, let them yell while you walk away. Of course, within reason, it's best to do only when you can walk away.

Apologies also go a long way too and so does picking up others poop.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

I pee in the river because it's considered to be a more ecologically sustainable practice than peeing on the ground in the desert. I pack my poop out in sealed containers. I try to stay on established trails and not expand the camp. Dogs don't do these things. Dogs are not children, they don't have rights, and public lands are not maintained and protected for their interests. 

There will always be a responsible minority of dog owners that cry "why me?" when the privilege to have pets is revoked, but the fact remains that many dog owners cause more than their share of impact. Sometimes rules have to come down to keep the dog shit out of the creeks, the wildlife from being harassed, and the quiet camping environment preserved. 

I love my two cattle dogs and take them outside all the time, but I for one celebrate bans in Westwater and Desolation Canyons. When we take river trips we hire a dog sitter.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

None of us have rights when it comes to public lands. It is all a privilege. For our use, our children's use, and our pets use. Don't lose sight of my argument being about use of land for people with pets, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about me. All of these uses trample crypto, pee on the land, and poo all over whether there are rules or not. At least dogs don't leave TP stewn around. All of your arguments apply to human uses too, and could justify closing off use of public lands. Isolate one use, and the same arguments will apply to you. Be careful what you ask for. We take our dogs on one stinking river trip a year and it sucks to see this trend. Two major rivers in one year is a lot.


----------



## RutRow (Apr 21, 2011)

in decades of running rivers. I have only seen dog poop on the river a few times. At putins and takeout I have seen it often, most of these dogs dont go down the rivers if you have noticed. So should we ban dogs from all out door areas blm, national park, forest service land and all camp grounds. I have never seen a dog in my river campspot in thirty years!

Now the real issue is human and horse poop, ever run the middle fork of the salmon horse poop everywhere. careful what you wish for the poop problem. the clear answer is to close these areas to human activity or so restrictive only the priviledge can be in these areas


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

I gotta' agree with your statements regarding dog crap at actual river camps. In 25 years I can only remember maybe a handful of camps (or less) where I observed bad dog/owner behavior. On Westwater, which I've had the privilege of running well over 100 times, I've seen an occasional problem owner/pet at the put in/take out.

Scout the Selway rapids and you'll be stamping through horseshit more often then not. Can't tell you how many times I've seen human shit on BLM rivers--hundreds?



RutRow said:


> in decades of running rivers. I have only seen dog poop on the river a few times. At putins and takeout I have seen it often, most of these dogs dont go down the rivers if you have noticed. So should we ban dogs from all out door areas blm, national park, forest service land and all camp grounds. I have never seen a dog in my river campspot in thirty years!
> 
> Now the real issue is human and horse poop, ever run the middle fork of the salmon horse poop everywhere. careful what you wish for the poop problem. the clear answer is to close these areas to human activity or so restrictive only the priviledge can be in these areas


----------



## Kendarflugen (Jan 31, 2006)

wildh2onriver said:


> Can't tell you how many times I've seen human shit on BLM rivers--hundreds?


Seriously, when I'm camping with my dog she'll sniff out a human turd 100 yards away... and eat it!!!

If we just had more shit eating dogs on the river...


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Wow....there seems to be quite a range of dog experiences here. Some of us that have been running dog friendly western rivers extensively for 10 or more years and have occasionally, rarely, or never had negative dog issues. Then there are others who have had dogs peeing & pooping on their gear, running through their camps, barking a ton, and leaving their doggie doo everywhere on a majority of their river trips. Bad luck? Bad karma? Different levels of dog owner responsibility on different rivers? Is all the dog poop on Montana & Idaho rivers really hidden by vegetation as Andy H. suggests? I suppose if most of my river/dog interactions were negative, and I was stepping in poop several times a trip I would feel differently. Definitely not my experience though. I will agree that if there was ample warning to Westwater dog owners to "clean up their act," or face a ban, and they didn't act responsibly, then I guess they reap what they sow? I don't think that was the case on Deso..... no warnings, no dialog with the river community, no grace period.....just a ban.
KJ


----------



## Iraft (Jan 16, 2012)

the one thing I really don't understand as a rafting dog owner is...why would you even want to bring your dog through westwater in the first place. I usually only bring the the dog along on float trips with smaller rapids. If I had to deal with a rescue situation I would not want to be thinking about my dogs life. He doesn't know about throw bags. I'm sure he'd self rescue and get to shore somewhere, but having to get him out of where ever he ended up could be a even bigger problem. Meanwhile there may be human lives at risk. I know this is mostly about poop, but does any one ever consider the added safety issue a dog can present in bigger water. I know my dog isn't listening to the safety talks we have at some point before and during the run.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

What it should come down too is this, Depends® on the dog.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

As someone who started as a long-term WW volunteer in 2001, this thread triggered a few thoughts.

1. I've done hundreds of patrols there, and cleaned up innumerable dog piles as I did camp inspections. In almost all of those cases, it would have been impossible to clearly determine whose dog left the poop. Camps are not inspected each day, and groups stopping for lunch also can use those locations. So on-river enforcement is not a realistic option.

2. I've broken up dog fights at the ramp, seen dogs pooping in other people's camp areas at the put-in, stepped in a pile of dog poop at the bottom of the trailer steps, and otherwise have observed quite a bit of inconsiderate behavior for years. Categorize it as owner inconsideration, but it is what it is...

3. On at least three occasions, I've been involved in river rescues in which a terrified dog had to be retrieved and comforted following a nasty swim -- after we first had safely recovered all the people, which meant the pets were in the river quite a while. In one instance, after a high water flip at Funnel we were unable to get the dog until it finally got on a rock just above Skull. Think about your dog swimming Funnel and the Surprises in high water, with all those eddies and suck holes...

4. I've asked more people than I can ever recount to leash their dogs at both the takeout and the put-in. While in the abstract this could result in a ticket, I've never written up a leash infraction, and don't know of any WW ranger who has. 

5. Dog problems are the kind of thing that's handled informally, but often with the comment that banning could be an option if people don't mind the regs. Alvin and the other rangers have been telling people for years that poorly controlled dogs would eventually result in this latest action.

6. WW rangers themselves are not empowered to issue actual tickets (only submit incident reports) for dog misbehavior. In extreme cases, they could deny a launch based on a failure to follow regulations at the ramp giving rise to a belief that a similar level of non-compliance would take place on the river. But I've never known a dog incident to end that way. 

7. And it really isn't practical to think in terms of calling a LE ranger all the way from Moab to write an actual ticket for dog misbehavior. I have written up one or two incidents for people leaving dogs tied to bumpers all day in the hot summer sun at Cisco, but don't recall if any LE follow-up resulted.

8. In my experience at the launch ramp, it's the people taking out from a Loma trip who present more of a problem than those rigging for a WW run. Perhaps WW boaters are more willing to comply because they fear they might not be allowed to launch. They certainly are more amenable to getting (and keeping) the dogs on leash when asked to.

9. The new ban will help with on-river, in-camp issues, but it won't stop all the problems. People coming down from Loma will still have their dogs with them when they arrive at the WW ramp. And some people will now be tempted to leave their dogs tied to a truck bumper at Cisco (something I've seen more than once) trusting that a coyote or lion doesn't cruise in for a quick meal while they're doing a day trip. 

10. I still remember how Bosco, Kyler's gone-to-puppy-heaven dog, used to snooze on the front deck of the Avon on patrols, and how much we enjoyed him being with us on the river. Yes, it's sad that responsible pet owners have been done in by the irresponsible ones.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

Iraft said:


> the one thing I really don't understand as a rafting dog owner is...why would you even want to bring your dog through westwater in the first place. I usually only bring the the dog along on float trips with smaller rapids. If I had to deal with a rescue situation I would not want to be thinking about my dogs life. He doesn't know about throw bags. I'm sure he'd self rescue and get to shore somewhere, but having to get him out of where ever he ended up could be a even bigger problem. Meanwhile there may be human lives at risk. I know this is mostly about poop, but does any one ever consider the added safety issue a dog can present in bigger water. I know my dog isn't listening to the safety talks we have at some point before and during the run.


Double that. I like having my dog with me for as much outdoor activity as I can, but there's no way I want to risk her with swimming WW. Everything is a risk, but WW is too high up.

However, for those willing to take that risk with their dog, it's a damn shame it can't be done now. Too bad other dogs/people made that happen.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

richp said:


> Hi,
> 
> As someone who started as a long-term WW volunteer in 2001, this thread triggered a few thoughts.
> 
> ...


As someone who had to disarm a drunk robber at 1 AM at the Cisco Boat Ramp in 2007, your comments triggered a few thoughts.

9. mm of the pistol I had to lunge and grab from said drunk robbers pocket when he moved his shirt aside to grab it. It should almost be required to have a dog tied up at the Cisco Boat Ramp for protection. There sure were'nt any Volunter Rangers that were going to stop the guy with the gun. I suppose if a mountain lion lunged at us while the drunk robber was going for his gun.............Oh well 10 cats in PFD's would have scared the shit out of the guy and he never would have gone for his gun in the first place.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

lhowemt said:


> None of us have rights when it comes to public lands. It is all a privilege. For our use, our children's use, and our pets use. Don't lose sight of my argument being about use of land for people with pets, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about me. All of these uses trample crypto, pee on the land, and poo all over whether there are rules or not. At least dogs don't leave TP stewn around. All of your arguments apply to human uses too, and could justify closing off use of public lands. Isolate one use, and the same arguments will apply to you. Be careful what you ask for. We take our dogs on one stinking river trip a year and it sucks to see this trend. Two major rivers in one year is a lot.


I just don't understand your argument. Dogs were the problem and were banned. The banning of dogs does not in any way entail the eventual banning of humans. 

Why do so many dog owners think that their dogs should get to go everywhere? What about when you flip in Sock it to Me and your dog dies from a flush drowning? You would be a negligent pet owner and at fault. Get a dog sitter and go enjoy the river. Pets are pets, and don't belong in Westwater, Desolation Canyon, Lodore, the Grand, etc.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Craporadon,

When I mentioned dogs tied to bumpers at Cisco, I neglected to mention that the first time I saw this was in mid August with about 110 degrees of direct sun. The dog had been left all day with a long enough rope that it had gone out and got itself tangled in some brush. 

The poor critter had been stuck out there in the heat who knows how long -- unable to get to the shade of the truck and unable to get to its water. I got it loose and back to the shade, and shortened up the rope so that it couldn't tangle again. Then I took vehicle information and turned that one in -- it was out-and-out cruelty to leave a pet there, that day, that way.

Now about other critters at Cisco. Yeah, the two-legged variety is probably the one to really worry about. But in my early years at WW, we had a bear that came into there -- this was before they put the current type of dumpster there. It would plunder the dumpsters. Drop aluminum foil laden scat. Cruise around for anyone camping in the area. Aggravate their dogs. Maybe rummage around in their camp if it wasn't clean. I believe it was the second or third year of this when someone shot it. 

FWIW

Rich Phillips


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Randaddy said:


> I just don't understand your argument. Dogs were the problem and were banned. The banning of dogs does not in any way entail the eventual banning of humans.


Oh well, I've put enough effort into trying to rephrase and restate my point. Others get it so I'll leave it at that.



Randaddy said:


> Why do so many dog owners think that their dogs should get to go everywhere? What about when you flip in Sock it to Me and your dog dies from a flush drowning? You would be a negligent pet owner and at fault. Get a dog sitter and go enjoy the river. Pets are pets, and don't belong in Westwater, Desolation Canyon, Lodore, the Grand, etc


Not one single person on this thread has seriously said their dogs should get to go everywhere. No one is complaining that they can't go to Lodore, San Juan, Grand, etc. Perhaps you are reading things into these posts that aren't being said, or reacting to comments elsewhere than here. I don't know, but I don't hear it in this discussion, at least anyone making any serious points. I am talking about the loss of access to public lands as a recreationalist with dogs. 

It's my issue and choice what kind of whitewater my dogs are up to, just like it is up to parents at what age their children can do whatever class of whitewater. Thank you very much we don't need you looking out for us or telling us what we'd be if xyz happened.


----------



## jimr (Sep 8, 2007)

So I guess humans and dogs should not be let into the backcountry?


----------



## colorado_steve (May 1, 2011)

lhowemt said:


> Oh well, I've put enough effort into trying to rephrase and restate my point. Others get it so I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


get over it, the world dont revolve around you and where you can take your dogs. i for one am happy to see no dogs on west water. and yes i do own dogs


----------



## coloradogem (Aug 5, 2009)

*Step aside dogs.....*

Appears _some _cats can do most everything a dog does! 
Fido better think up a new trick soon or schmooze some BLM folks- and on the double!
I'ld like to see the Cisco .9mm toting ass try and make a shot at my 10 pfd wearing bad ass rafting cats! Appears Fido better get some bullet dodging cat-like reflexes too.

And, anyone have access to a hydrotherapy pool to bring the no-so-savy in swimming cats up to speed?

(disclaimer: do not try this at home if you or said cat are untrained or unwilling) 

To *richp:* thank you for saving that Cisco dogs life and doing what you could to have some consequences for the owner. That owner is lucky you were the stand in volunteer and not me....and I mean reeeeeaaaaal lucky.


----------



## BCJ (Mar 3, 2008)

What Rich said. And what GCPBA said. I been a WW volunteer long time too, and between that and private trips I've seen a couple dogs drown. Very sad. Dogs can swim long time, but they don't float well. Ever notice how just the head stays above water? So even with doggie PFD, dumping your dog into Skull hole or other places you do risk it's life. Love dogs. Sad when they drown. Hi Rich.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Thanks Rich for your comments. I have a question for you. Who gave your more trouble as a WW volunteer....unruly dogs or unruly humans? My personal negative experiences at WW were always with drunk stupid humans. Maybe we should ban alcohol on the river because it can lead to rude, irresponsible, and dangerous behavior that can ruin other peoples river experience? Maybe the reason there's so much dog poop lingering at WW is because the dog owners are too wasted to give a crap about what their dogs are up to? Just a thought. An alcohol ban would cause an uproar of biblical proportions......but to quote colorado steve.....the world don't revolve around you and where you can take your PBR.

As for the risk involved with taking dogs on river trips, and whether taking them constitutes bad doggie parenting......I would personally feel worse leaving the dog locked up in a kennel for weeks at a time. Our river dog jumps for joy whenever she sees us start gathering up the river gear. Is it because she "loves" river running? Probably not. Is it because she "loves" being anywhere with her human family? More likely. Anytime you take anyone.... kids, spouse, family, friends, dogs, cats, hamsters, etc. down any river you are running a risk. It's up to each person to weigh those risks and make their own decision.
KJ


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

> =cataraftgirl Maybe we should ban alcohol on the river because it can lead to rude, irresponsible, and dangerous behavior that can ruin other peoples river experience? Maybe the reason there's so much dog poop lingering at WW is because the dog owners are too wasted to give a crap about what their dogs are up to? Just a thought. An alcohol ban would cause an uproar of biblical proportions......but to quote colorado steve.....the world don't revolve around you and where you can take your PBR.


Real alcohol is already banned in Utah but thanks for the idea. There are plenty of people out there that do not need to be wasted to not give a crap. But when you think about it they do give a crap, at least their dogs doo.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Cataraftgirl,

I have to qualify my response by saying that cumulatively, I only have about two years on station at WW. Typically I came out for four to eight weeks at a time in the Spring and Fall. So while my experience spans a lot of years, others with more overall time out there may have a different take on this.

But at the WW put-in, I saw far more dog-related episodes than problematic enebriated members of the public. Since we don't do evening patrols of the river camps, what goes on there is speculation based on the amount of booze we see loaded on boats. Consequently, if there's heavy drinking after launch, the usual time for a ranger to see it is when when passing people barged up on the float out. I can only recall one launch ramp incident where a fellow was so obviously snockered that I had to extract a promise from the trip leader that he wouldn't let that guy row. (Drinking at Cisso is another matter, and I seem to recall the Grand County Sheriff's Office occasionally setting up a sobriety check on the road going out.)

Yes, evening drinking and consumption of other substances in WW's public campground was common, and sometimes that resulted in noise problems. That's the one thing I think a lot of people could have a legitimate gripe about. But in most cases if noise after ten o'clock woke one of us up and we came out to have a chat, things settled down. Not always, but usually. (And drinking wasn't always the cause of noise -- I personally never understood why someone would be so inconsiderate as to wake up the entire campground by pulling in at eleven o'clock at night and starting to unload gear and blow up boats.)

But altogether, the frequency of that kind of thing was way lower than for incidents involving dogs off leash. We had some kind of dog issue on an almost daily basis at the put-in. And in fairness to WW boaters, many of them involved people coming down from Loma.

Let's be clear -- virtually all the folks I encountered at WW over the years were quite agreeable and sober at the ramp. Most boaters about to go down the river are already having anticipatory fun, and are looking forward to having even more fun once they launch. Most are people who are enjoyable to be around because of our shared interest in river-running. And within that group, the vast majority of dog owners did comply with the posted leash requirement. It is a shame that the ill-behaved minority ruined it for the majority of responsible dog owners.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

I am amazed that people are surprised by this. For years now the rangers have been saying, leash your dog at the put in. Leash your dog at the put in! It is in the rules that the permit holder gets, leash your dog at the put in. I do not support the ban but am not surprised by it either. I have a few friends who bring their dogs on westy and it is sad to see that they cant. For some it means they wont be running westy with me anymore due to the kenneling fees. All the sudden westy is a $500 weekend for them.

we always camp a few miles above the putin to avoid issues with dogs, the rangers and other idiots. At the put in they leave the dogs in the truck until the boats are on the water and then they leash the dogs to their respective boats. (keeps beer from getting stolen out of coolers to). Not sure why it is so hard.

I love dogs but i have had a bunch of bad experiences at westy with dogs and dumbass owners, mostly dumbass owners. I have had gear pissed on, food snatched, fights break out, you name it i have seen it. We even stitched a dog up on one of the tables there after a doberman started a fight with the boxer.

What i dont get is why have the rangers let this go on. I cant tell you how many times i have heard alvin or whoever telling people to "leash your dogs or we may ban them". Just like any of the other rules why wasnt this enforced. I know that the rangers cant give tickets but they can deny a launch. If my group showed up with no groover and no pfd's could we launch? Hell no. If a group shows up and cant follow the rules they shouldnt launch. If a dog owner new that if he let his dog run wild and piss on my gear, that the whole group couldnt launch, it wouldnt happen. Period. The issue is that people will not follow rules if there is no consequence. If they can get warning after warning and still go on down the river with their group while my mesh bag is wet with piss and there is shit all over the put in then why would they bother. If just a few groups would have been denied, the word would have spread and the bullshit would have stopped. People who knew their buddies couldnt handle their dogs wouldnt have been invited.

I know, i know the rangers dont want to be the bad guy and someone would have thrown a fit if they were denied. All it would have taken was a few times and it would have stopped. How pissed would you be at the guy on your trip who couldnt leash his dog for a few hours at the put in if your trip didnt go? Have fun eating your food on the blm land all weekend or driving right on back home after the expense. Not saying its the rangers fault but if rules arent enforced, they get broken.

What i dont quite understand is how this all works out with the put in serving as the take out for loma which allows dogs. There will still be dogs at the put in. I know for a fact that one time i had gear pissed on by dogs coming off of loma. This problem is not solved by banning dogs at westy. So, will it be that same deal? Rangers telling people "leash your dog or we may ban them in loma" while their dog pisses on my gear. What about people who came off loma with dogs and camp at the ranger station? Their trip is done, they dont care if they get a lecture from a ranger.

I hate to see bans go in effect when they are unneeded and dont solve the problem. The rules were fine they just needed to be enforced.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

lhowemt said:


> It's my issue and choice what kind of whitewater my dogs are up to, just like it is up to parents at what age their children can do whatever class of whitewater. Thank you very much we don't need you looking out for us or telling us what we'd be if xyz happened.


That's what the people whose dogs died in Westwater said. Those people may have caused the dogs' death with negligence or mistreatment because of their canine carnage. The key element to me is that a kid can be taught to climb out from under a flipped boat. A kid can also be encouraged to swim to the raft and not to a cliffed-out beach. A kid can express to you his or her level of understanding prior to the trip. I'm really not trying to look out for you or your dogs in particular, I just think the dog ban at WW was a long time coming for several reasons and am interested in discussing it. 



cataraftgirl said:


> As for the risk involved with taking dogs on river trips, and whether taking them constitutes bad doggie parenting......I would personally feel worse leaving the dog locked up in a kennel for weeks at a time.


You take your dog on river trips for weeks at a time? Where? (curious, not sarcastic) I just think that places that can flip boats might be a little too risky for pets, but I'm all about taking dogs on flat stretches and on fishing trips. And yes, everyone's "grey area" is different for this. Westwater is super easy for most experienced boaters, but I have seen plenty of them flip down there too.

We hire someone to stay in our house with our dogs and show them the same kind of activity and attention that we do when we go on river trips. It's not cheap, but neither is that kennel. It helps to know a few poor college students / river guides who are sick of roommates...

The point of this ban seems to have been intended to curb poor dog/owner behaviors, but I'll be happy to not hear about any more four legged tragedies because of it. If I'm overestimating the risk, if someone has seen dogs swim out from under flipped boats or deal with carnage well, please chime in. I may be a paranoid dog owner, but I'm a caring dog owner and I don't want my dogs to get in over their heads because of my decision or my bad line in a rapid.


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

Last I checked Big Brother, BLM or whatever other agency wasn't banning dogs from our public resoureces out of fear for the dog's safety. Rather, they were being banned b/c of some poor rule enforcement and idiot dog owners and some out of control minority dogs. So lets not pretend this is for the safety of the dogs. Come on...

That whole safety thing and worrying about someone else's decision as to what passenger he or she chooses to take down the water is a slippery slope. How about we put a ban on people that are obese, smokers, high blood pressure, non swimmers, intoxicated, too young, too old, too strong, too weak, or just plain too stupid as well?

The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Dogs don't have rights. People have rights! If I want to take my dirtbike and go screaming through the BLM backcountry, that is my right. Or if I want to take my fishing pole and go to my favorite spot, also my right. If I want to go hiking with my friend, dog or human, also my right. Also, if I want to go rafting with my friends, regardless of whom, still my right. At least according to the BLM and their mission satement. 

Yeah, some dogs need more control directed towards them. That is why there are leash laws, THAT NEED TO BE ENFORCED. However, you can't say with a strait face that dogs harrass wildlife more than motors on the river, OHVs screaming up and down and all over the countryside, gas and oil extraction, the free range cattle stealing the resources of the native animals, or even the target shooters that love to practice their Constitutional rights on our public land. So I find that the harrassing wildlife argument is a complete line of BS!

Dog poop? Really? Two words.... Horse Shit! Go almost anywhere and you'll see more horse shit than dog shit. Horses are better represented than dogs hence, their "protection".

Also, as far as trips go... My dogs did a 22 day, 311 mile, trip last year. MFS, Main, Lower. A 15 day MFS, Main. And typically we do a fall Deso trip but not last year. OH, yeah and 5 WW runs. Happy to report, 0 fatalities, 0 injuries and minimal swims by both humans and dogs.

So if you are uncomfortable with your dog on your boat. Cool. Leave your dogs at home. Just don't try and tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing for the safety of my dogs. Because that mentality leads to a very slippery slope.


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

does this rule apply to any other sections? ruby or daily?


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

okieboater said:


> If all the dog owners at WestWater put in followed the rules IE kept their dogs on a leash, picked up the poop and kept the dog from barking at all hours of the night - I would agree that having your dog along was ok.
> 
> This is not the case. The dog owners that obey the rules are outnumbered big time by those who do not. I have not camped at West Water camp ground as much as a lot of you have but have been there most years over the last ten or so years. I cannot recall a time when camped there that one or more dogs ran thru our camp peeing and pooping, barking multiple times at night or what ever. I lost count of when I have seen the Ranger finally ask a dog owner whose pets were racing around the ramp peeing and pooping on peoples gear and the dog owner put on a leash but let the dog run free soon as the Ranger went back to the trailer. It is unfortunate but the only way to keep the dogs on a leash and under control is 24 hour 7 day Ranger walking the camp and ramp area.
> 
> ...



nailed it. 
case closed.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

if the rangers would have stood up a little sooner and enforced the written rules sent to the permit holder, the ban would be a moot point. the problem simply wouldnt exist. no enforcement= broken rules. while the writing on my pfd was being examined with a magnifying glass dogs were shitting on the steps of the trailer and off goes the group. just seems silly to enforce one rule and not the other. especially one that affects others experience so much not just the group at hand.


----------



## deltapapa22 (Apr 6, 2007)

*another era passed...*

Really, it is not about dogs. It is about control. For the 'good of the river... for the experience....for the saftey of the people...whatever the reason, it is about control!
I remember WW with no permits (yes puppies there was a time). When we were considered psyco crazy idiots. You found an old 'disco' and gave it a shot! Kayaks... a dream yet to be seen.
Permits? Groovers? Fire pans? All of the crap we must carry now...just a toss off in the furture. (not saying it's bad....)
Well all of that happened. There are more restrictions yet to be seen!
It is goverment! it is all about some kind of control. Good or bad, _Just a fact jack._
We have let the weak, the whiners, the stuipid, the burnt out take control!
Too late to bitch 'BOATERS'. We gave it away!


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi zbaird,

I've now seen it all -- someone on the Buzz arguing for more rigid, rigorous law enforcement on the river. (grin)

Personally, I'm pretty close to your point of view on this. But there's a balance to be struck somehow. Hammer too hard and it throws an oppressive shadow over the river experience. Don't hammer hard enough and some small number of folks will take advantage. 

Plus, I'll bet you'd agree that if the WW rangers had started denying launches for dog problems at the ramp, that this board and BLM's Moab field office would have been swamped with commentary and complaints about the heavy-handed methods being used to deny boaters their right to enjoy public lands and get on the river with their pet companions.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Randaddy said:


> You take your dog on river trips for weeks at a time? Where? (curious, not sarcastic).
> 
> 2011 river trips with dog - Southfork Snake for 3 days in May,Owyhee for 6 days in June, Rogue for 6 days in July, Main Salmon for 7 days in August, Middle Fork for 7 days in September. Add in travel days, and that's a lot of kennel time, or house sitting time, and a lot of $$$. This is a pretty typical summer for our group. But it's not about money for us. This dog has been raised on the river, ever since my rafting buddy rescued her from the pound as a puppy. She doesn't do well when she is left behind, no matter who is babysitting her (doesn't eat, mopes around). In her 5 years on earth she has swam two rapids.....Orelano on the Middle Fork, and the new Black Creek on the Main Salmon. She wears a CFD at all times on the boat. Would it suck if she drowned? You bet. But leaving her at home or in a kennel all summer long would suck even more. On the other hand.....I only take my dog on trips like the Southfork Snake. He is not a mellow raft dog like my buddy's dog. He does ok, but he makes me nervous. So I will not take him on real whitewater trips.
> 
> ...


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Cataraftgirl,

Night-time noise in the WW camp is a problem that started in the pre-Alvin era, when there was a lot less emphasis on the rule. Alvin has taken a different approach, but old habits (and the reputation of WW as a party spot) die hard. However, rangers living on station are quite ready to go out and talk to folks when we hear the noise in the station or the ranger trailer beside the boat house, or if someone comes to complain. 

Frankly, I have never understood why people feel the need to carouse so close to others in the campground. Why don't they take advantage of the hundreds of thousands of acres of vacant BLM land away from the river, and drink and party to their heart's content? Nor do I understand why folks didn't have more consideration in a more basic sense -- allowing others to have a decent night's sleep. Gets back to that old thing about my freedom extending only to the degree that it doesn't infringe on that of others...

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

rich, certainly not trying to attack you or the rangers in general. I have had great experiences at westy with the rangers overall. i understand that what i am saying sounds like it is asking for more regs. The regs were there, just like pfd and groover regs, just not enforced. I also understand there would have been somebody who got on here or called moab in an uproar. I feel like that would have solved the problem through word of mouth where the current ban may not. In that case it would have been a bad apple saves the bunch instead of spoiling it. If trip leaders knew that they may not launch if their dog toting participants couldnt follow a simple rule, they may have worked a little harder to keep their peeps under wraps. I cant imagine it would have been common practice to have dogs at large if there were consequences. I do not understand why common courtesy cannot prevail without consequence but obviously some people have a hard time controlling themselves. It is solely the fault of the dog owners for not controlling themselves and i am not pushing this off on the rangers by any means, but if they have to enforce the dog rules now why not then. Somebody is gonna show up with a dog and the ranger will have to send them packing.

Mainly I am wondering if there will still be dogs pissing on my gear at the put in, or will it be cats now. Does the ban encompass the whole ranger station area or just dogs getting on the water? What about people spending the night there after loma? What about campers that dont boat coming down? What about day trippers camped there planning on leaving the dog in the truck? I will be bummed if there are still dogs at large at the put in which seems to be the main reason for the ban. More rules that dont solve problems are no good. Certainly if there are still dogs at the put in annoying people then loma is next for the ban. Where does it stop.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi zbaird,

Well it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. I can't speak for others, but my first approach always was a warning. Then if there were still compliance problems at the ramp, from time to time I had to mention the nuclear option -- no launch. But I never actually pulled the trigger on that one. And that was a non-option for Loma folks anyway.

You've put your finger on the remaining issue. Dogs are still going to be allowed at the ramps (for both Loma and WW groups) and still will be required to be on leash there.

(The new stipulations say, "Dogs are no longer allowed in Westwater Canyon as of March 1, 2012. Dogs must be kept on a leash at the Westwater Ranger Station and under control at all times. Dogs may not be left unattended at Westwater Ranger Station or at Cisco Landing.")

As to the latter, human nature being what it is, a few people still will gauge the likelihood of detection and ticketing if they leave their dogs unattended at Cisco, versus the known costs of kennelling, as has been mentioned as a downside to this new regulation.

I "retired" from long-term volunteering there last year, so it won't fall to me to make decisions on this in the future. But since I know the BLM Moab people scan this board from time to time, maybe some of these comments will be useful in framing a new approach to the remaining problems with WW boaters. What to do about the Loma people -- for whom a "no WW launch" threat has no force, is for someone higher up in the food chain to think about and decide.

Have a good one.

Rich Phillips


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Perfect, as i stated before the rule will not solve the problem (see rich's post about where dogs will still be allowed) but at least the blm can point to a rule change and pose as if they solved the problem without really addressing it nor eliminating the root causes. Excellent. As i said, lazy management.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

steven ...Ruby has changes the dog rules w/ the new permit rules. Your allowed 2 dogs per group and they are counted as part of total group number.

Hey Zach and Rich, and anyone one else,

Looking at just at the LE(law enforcement) problem. Its hard to enforce since there isn't a LE at westwater to issue tickets. Now, yes the BLM could have stationed a LE there to due that, but that also costs a lot to have a uniformed, gun bearing, ticket writing employed guy there. Where is the money to cover his costs? BLM gets the crap of the budget for the department of the interior (NPS take most). Standard BLM rangers cover 100's of thousands of acres with what, 2 law enforcement guys to tackle it all. They can't be everywhere at once. And with the continued slashing of gov spending, even less to the BLM. So, ok, they can increase the cost of the permits to help cover the cost of a ranger to ticket people who can't / won't control their dogs?? Does this make any sense?? no. And I know we would bitch beyond all belief if the cost of the permit went up. 

as for horsepoop vs dog poop. hmm, well minus miners cabin/big horn/bald eagle, I've yet to see horses in/around any other campsites in the canyon. And how many dogs are roaming around those 7 campsites that all the poop is going to be collected at....yes, some owners pick it up, but honestly, how many go walking thru the brush and tall grass looking for their dogs droppings at camp?? it's the desert, not much decom going on.

Reality, the BLM aren't our mothers and aren't there to babysit us and our friends/pets/whatever. They are there to preserve as best they can the environment, and the use for everyone (rafting/kayaking/mining/ranching/ect). You can't really bitch that much about all the natural gas fields and oil fields when you are driving a car or heating your house.

How many years have you been there and watched/or seen the rangers ask to have a dog put on a leach, when as your own responsibility should know better and have already done it. 

We brought this upon ourselves, no point in blaming the blm for putting in a policy that is trying to make better of the land.

Yes, I love dogs, no I don't have one, yes I want one to take on the river, yes I would love to see a LE there to enforce rules, no I don't want to pay more to have the ranger there, yes I SHOULD ENFORCE THE RULES FOR MY OWN ANIMAL!

bitch at me all you want, just my 2 cents


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Kendarflugen said:


> Seriously, when I'm camping with my dog she'll sniff out a human turd 100 yards away... and eat it!!!
> 
> If we just had more shit eating dogs on the river...


 
And people wonder why I don't want their dog sniffing or slobbering on me or my gear.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

josh,

i didnt say have a LE guy there. it wasnt needed, im glad they didnt and glad they dont. Clearly its too much cost for what may amount to a few tickets a year. Worse than some little annoying dog ticket would have been a denied launch (which alvin or whatever vol ranger was on duty had the power to do)that cost the group hundreds in fees, gas, and food. Not to mention how much it would suck to drive all the way out from wherever only not to be able to launch at all because some idiot in your group couldnt control his own dog. Rich stated he would give multiple warnings, and then threaten to deny launch. Not one denied launch, ever for an idiot who dog is literally pissing on other peoples gear and starting fights with other dogs. I just think a few examples could have set the standard. TL's would have been more on it had they been in fear of a rejected launch. Then, the pressure would have been on the group to control dogs associated with their launch. I agree we should have been able to police ourselves but apparently that wasnt the case. Fact is, the rules we signed as TL to be able to launch included dogs being leashed at the put in. if you broke the dog rules launch should have been denied as it would with no pfd's,groover or any of the other rules, especially in cases with multiple warnings first. Was anyone warned about a groover, no, they couldnt launch or had to switch to a day trip.

I love dogs but I dont have one either, and really, all but a few have been a pain in my ass in one way or another on trips i have done with them. I just dont like new rules that wont solve the given problem. As rich said, there will still be dogs at large from loma folks as well as campers not running the rivers and potentially from the same idiots that caused this in the first place. The only thing this new rule will solve is there will be no new dog shit in westy canyon proper which wasnt the real issue in the first place. Not sure why i am so fired up about this since i dont even have dogs. 

on a more important note, when are we runnin cat again?


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

Hi Zach, Good Question. I haven't been down in years. We gotta plan a trip this year.

I wasn't trying to single you or rich out, more just tired of seeing everyone blaming the BLM. As a federal worker, it just gets old. had to toss something in.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

lets do it. fall sound good? i have been doing halloween trips the last couple years and they have been awesome. certainly a lot more tame than that last fiasco we were intertwined on. if you are in denver some time hit me up and we'll hook up for a drink or something..

not worried about being singled out and one would think it would be easy to just leash your damn dogs at the put in. i just hate to see new rules when the existing ones were fine had they been enforced. 

how cute, you defending the federal workers and all. arent you just the model employee.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

sure, fall sounds good. And drinks even better, Denver I am.

Yep model employee, just give me a ton of herbicide and a chainsaw and i can open up some more prime camping in that there tammy land.


----------



## BarryDingle (Mar 13, 2008)

Take me with you,zbaird! Esp if Jerry is going.....


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Now here's the answer to the whole problem. "Park Ranger Zaps Man with Stun Gun for Walking Dog Off Leash" 

Ranger zaps off-leash dog walker with shock weapon

If BLM had just issued Alvin a stun gun years ago, there would be no more leash problems at WW. (grin).

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

hah, that would do the trick. Though I could see Alvin handing all the after 10pm partying crowd too. ZAP, shut up and stay down!

Seems excessive, but after the incident that happened at Mt. Rainer, I would guess most rangers are on the cautious side right now.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Jeez. Every time I think I have all the necessary river gear.....up pops another must-have item. The River Taser - Neighbors partying too loud & late at the put-in? Your buddy drinking all your beer? Newbie leaving the cooler open too long? Someone whining about dishwashing or groover duty? Never fear.....Just grab your handy River Taser.....behavior modification that packs a punch.


----------



## RutRow (Apr 21, 2011)

do we really want a rule for every aspect of enjoying a river trip. Remeber the next rule may ruin something that is important to you. Existing rules are in place and no need to make new ones. We are paying very high river fees right now I think the BLM should provide better service for the high cost all the high cost rules they like to make.


----------



## Grif (May 21, 2008)

That bitch tazered that feller in the back! Fer havin' a coupla wiener dogs off leash? Gawd damn, the federales don't mess around these days!


----------

