Does Rover belong on the trails?

[SandyLou]

It's not JUST about their SOLID excretions - - how many of you responsible owners clean up dog urine? Hmmm. . .
Having Rovers on the trail cuts back on the amount and variety of wildlife near the trail.
They carry & leave behind doggie scent (which is not normally found in nature) by urinating in the woods or even just walking thru the brush.
And then hikers tend to leave the trails to find / see wildlife.
And then erosion of natural areas occurs.
Rover is a domesticated creature - allow him to stay home. Let him run and jump and play in open fields or parks.
Not out on the trail. Not fair to him. Not fair to the hikers who will follow. Not fair to nature.

SandyLou
FL Fish & Game volunteer
FL Trails & Audubon Society member

 

[Gozo]

Um, Sandy Lou, how would you account for the fact that wild animals urinate as well? they're used to smelling other animals' urine, darlin'. dogs aren't normally found in nature? um, just because their domestic doesn't mean their genetic makeup has changed. don't blame dogs for a hiker's inability to follow the rules of staying single file on trails. Rover is a companion in most cases...not just a home decoration. he goes with me when i go to places meant for dogs, ie not to the grocery store, but he does accompany me hiking in the backcountry.

 

[Gozo]

sorry, i was a bit too confrontational there, i'm used to blog style of posting. my apologies.

 

[SandyLou]

no worries GoZo!
This is just an opinion poll, after all!

But domesticated animals(including humans) do not eat foods that are "natural" to the individual environment. So their discharges (*giggle* trying to be delicate) therefore do not "smell" like the surrounding. ewwww

"~sniff sniff~ whatever left THAT ain't from around here!"

And because the diet is "processed", Rover (and human) bodies digest with different enzymes. Soooo, even if you - or Rover - spent a week in the woods eating berries, your discharge would still smell different to the natives. And they would not go back to that vicinity for a period of time.

Don't worry. . . .I get up in arms about male hunters relieving themselves on a tree also *giggle* It's just an opinion based on wildlife biology. Sure, I'd like to take my dawg to the woods to run and jump in nature - but I know it's not good for him, for the environment, or for the native animals. So he's

home and runs later in an empty field near my house.

You are welcome to your opinion of course. Just don't try to take Rover to a FL State park. . . *giggle* chances are he'll be asked to leave at the front gate.

 

[fallen^sparrow]

Depends on the time and place. Environments where dogs in their many natural forums (foxes, coyotes, wolves) are already typically present I don't have a problem with as the natural wildlife is well aware and prepared to deal with their presense. Bringing alone a dog will decrease the odds of seeing wildlife but I've found most resident wildlife populations tend to avoid high traffic human trail systems anyway (humans are predators too). If I want to make a serious effort to see wildlife I almost always end up having to leave the "beaten path" in search of more undisturbed habitats. Excrement wise, the environment is generally left undamaged by their feces and urine (wildlife have to go to right?)... and although unpleasant no permanent or long term damage is done (we are talking reasonable numbers of dogs on trails with mid to low usage... if every family that entered the Grand Canyon brought their dog there would be significant consequences environment wise). There are however environments where dogs aren't naturally present such as the high alpine which are incredibly sensitive to any disturbances either physically or chemically (body waste material, etc). Any human presense does damage... not to mention a dog roaring around ripping up sensitive plant/lichens with their claws... digging in search of small mammals and leaving "deposites" that will still be there a hundred years from now.

Overall I'd say use a little common sense. If you don't see anyone else in the parking lot walking off with their dogs leave yours in the car as well. If you see every individual heading off carrying binocs, tripods an camera's and mammal/bird identification books ... thats a pretty good indication people want to try and see said wildlife, and rover won't help them in their quest making you a very unpopular individual on the trail. Just use your head and try putting yourself in someone elses shoes.

fallen^sparrow

 

[lastcodec]

"Not fair to him. Not fair to the hikers who will follow. Not fair to nature."

Of course its fair to him, I have always taken my dog hiking. He loves it., And is it fair to deprive me of my companion, and my companions enjoyment just so another hiker can see a bunny or deer? And why isn't it fair to nature? I don't think a dog even compares to the ecological trauma caused by roads and developements.

Also I think the whole unrine thing is just enviromental propaganda. I have 3 dogs, they are in a pen in my back yard all day. Yet I still have birds at my feeder, bunnys and deer in my back yard, and lots of chipmonks and squirrels. I have even had the occasional bear or coy dog.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Really, I think wildlife temporarily moves away from anything it perceives to be a predator. Including foxes, wolves, and humans. But that happens all the time in the woods anyway. And the foot trails are really meant for us to enjoy the wilderness. I notice my dog bonds very tightly when we hike together a lot.

 

[brinny]

sorry, i was a bit too confrontational there, i'm used to blog style of posting. my apologies.

that was very gracious of you....and quick!!

 

[mrguitarporsche5]

Um I'm a bird hunter so i use dogs to hunt. but technically we don't use trails. we pretty much go wherever the birds are and thats not usually on a trail.