Reader Participation Day: Should Pets Be Given More Leeway in National Parks?

It is hard for me to be objective as I am a leash wearing, poop-picking-up dog owner with dog-friendly dogs but, having walked many a trail in local parks with not so responsible dog owners, I realize everyone does not heed to my standards. It is not enjoyable to step around piles and be accosted by overly friendly or underly friendly dogs. I really can see both sides of this issue. Maybe there could be dogless trails and dog friendly trails. Or maybe there could be trails that allowing dogs on could be tested to see the impact.

We love travelling with our dogs. They are well behaved and many folks will talk to a person with a dog that might not otherwise. I guess if I had a vote I would vote to open some trails but not all. Dogs or not, even the trails make an impact on the environment and I certainly wouldn't want to increase that just for my own pleasure.

I used to buy the National pards pass every year and try to visit at least 3 parks a year while on vacation. But primarily because of the current restrictions on pets I have stopped visiting or supporting the national parks in any way. When I travel I always take my Bokyn spaniel and I don't like to leave him locked up in an RV while I hike the trails or other simple site seeing that is restricted in the parks. As far as behavior goes, I would say pets that I have seen in most cases are better behaved and less distructive than 90% of the children and adults that I've encountered in the parks.
Like I said, I no longer visit or support the national parks, instead I vacation in the national forrest areas that have camping facilities. Lot less crowded, more hiking, in many cases much prettier and than the parks.

I always travel with my dogs and would never consider leaving them in someone else's care. While this limits the places we can go, I'd rather stay home with my dogs than travel without them. Not all pet owners feel this way, and I certainly understand that. I also understand that the rest of the world shouldn't have to adjust to my personal preferences - just because I want to be with my dogs all of the time, doesn't mean the parks should be more flexible and allow my dogs on the trails. However, if they did, I would be a responsible pet owner and pick up after my dogs, keep them restrained and under control, and ensure that they didn't ruin anyone else's visit (which is more than most parents do with their children these days).

The park policies of not allowing dogs on trails does not keep me away from National Parks. However, it is often difficult to find convenient lodging near the national parks that allows dogs. Several of the large, national hotel brands now allow dogs, but you generally don't find these hotel brands near the parks. So, for me, it's not the park policies keeping me away, but the lack of dog-friendly accommodations nearby. We are actually considering buying an RV for this reason.

For anyone interested in visiting Yellowstone with their dogs, I recommend the Clubhouse Inn in West Yellowstone. We stayed there on a trip several years ago and they are very pet friendly.

No.

I travel often with my 2 Golden Retreivers. They are well behaved and more importantly their owner is respectful of other people and dogs they meet along the way. Because of the National Park rules I spend more time in National Forest areas. Colorado is a good example. I avoided Rocky Mtn. National Park but enjoy the surrounding areas (Monach Lake as an example has a nice 4 mile hike)
I would very much enjoy hiking the National Park trails with my dogs on a leash. They do make me feel safer as a female hiker. Maybe this could be tried on some of the trails on a trial basis. Just like horses are limited to some trails. I would very much enjoy a change in the National park rules. I always buy a yearly park pass but don't use it as often as I wish I could.

I like the idea of allowing pets on those trails where horses are allowed. Pets are not going to do as much damage as horses, and it would allow some access to those with dogs.
While those responding here (and many others) would exercise great control, there are too many who would not.
I generally avoid trails where horses are allowed, so this compromise would not bother me.

Kurt, you have introduced a reader participation topic that should be a major issue. It will be interesting to see if this article get's as much reader interest as did past articles on carrying hand guns in parks.

As a former park ranger-naturalist, and a pet owner for the past 40 years, I have been on both sides of this issue. In my park ranger days, I was 100% opposed to dogs in parks, even though I met my future wife at Zion NP while she was walking her large German sheperd off-the-leash, giving me the chance to inform her of park rules.

I can't begin to count all the times I encountered dogs off the leash while hiking the Mist Trail in Yosemite. "Is that dog yours?" "No ranger, it's not ours." "Well then, I guess I'll have to tie my belt around his collar and take him with me back to park headquarters." "Wait a minute ranger, we know the person who owns that dog!" "Well please tell the person who owns this dog that his animal is not allowed on this trail, at all, and will have to be returned to Yosemite Valley." "Hey ranger, what's the fine?"

Since those days, I've become a dog owner myself and, our dog has become our third child. He has all the rights of a child in our family. Our vacations are definitely influenced by where we can and cannot take our animal. Most times we take him. A few times we don't. When we return, he acts as if he's been orphaned.

Now, my question is this: Why is it that the Canadian National Parks are so pet friendly? We found dogs hiking off the leach (but very well behaved) along the trail to Larch Valley, above Moraine Lake in Banff National Park, and this trail was posted for Grizz, so people were hiking in groups of 6 or more. Why is it that dogs are permitted in designated wilderness areas of the National Forests? Why is it that under much more crowded conditions, dogs are permitted nearly everywhere in the cities and forests of Europe, including in trains, hotels, gest houses, chalets, and restaurants?

Is there bonafide evidence of dogs in parks creating a serious ecological impact? If so, why is this impact not also evident in the National Forests where dog rules are much more lenient? To what extent does the occasional dog chasing wildlife simply amount to additional, if not much needed excersize, on behalf of both parties? On the other hand, if a dog were to encounter a bear, wolf, mountain lion, or coyote, would a gun-carrying pet owner be justified in discharging the weapon to save his animal's life?

I don't think the issue of pets in parks will be solved with Kurt's "reader participation" question, but I do think it will attract quite a bit of commentary. I do think that quite a few potential park visitors avoid national parks because they are perceived to be pet unfriendly. Others take their pet anyway, being prepared to ask the question: "Hey ranger, what's the fine?"

Working in a park and owning pets, I can see both sides of the issues. Half the dogs visiting the park are not well behaved and shouldn't be trusted near a cliff with a 1,000 ft drop. The other half are wonderful. Having worked in a NPS site that allowed dogs on leash, I would love to see all horse trails opened up to dog visitation as well. Those trails tend to be in the back-country and not heavily visited. A hiker with their dog on leash could have a nice hike on those trails.

The most obvious issue is dogs going to the bathroom on/off trails. Most owners would surely be good about picking it up, but certainly not all. I'm not sure it is that big of a deal (there are sometimes horse trails after all and horse manure is much worse), but I'd also note that dogs bark, some very loudly and frequently, and this can be disruptive to people looking for solitude, birdwatching, etc...

I'd also ask about the impact on wildlife. Isle Royale doesn't allow dogs, and I believe I read that because someone brought their dog the wolf population took a big hit because of a canine disease the dog had. This is an extreme example of course, but it's one reason not to allow them, and dogs of course may be inclined to "interact" with other wildlife as well.

As for wilderness, it seems to me that the leave no trace ethic applies even more so there, and so the "threat" of dog doo doo is even greater there.

My own personal view is that I wouldn't mind dogs while hiking as long as I don't have to step in their business, and as long as they're quiet. I found it pretty hard to sleep in Hancock when I camped the night before going to Isle Royale due to a yippy dog - some dog owners just don't take into consideration the fact that some people don't want to listen to their dog barking all night. (PS: When I slept at Isle Royale, it was instead the loons that kept me up, so I guess sometimes it's lose-lose, although I much preferred the loons)

Absolutely NO to allowing dogs in our National Parks. We take numerous road trips to our National Parks and the very last thing I want to see is some irresponsible dog owner allowing his dog off leash to approach me and to leave ungodly messes on trails. I live in the foothills of Denver, Colorado and I am a hiker. We look for hiker only trails (there are not many of them) and I am appalled at the number of dog owners that bring their dogs on these trails. The other trails are horrible with dog waste. You can't take your eyes off where you are stepping. For God's sake what is wrong with people that bring their dogs to National Parks and leave them locked up in a car in a parking lot while they go off exploring, or worst attempt to "sneak" their dogs on trails. Hint: Arches National Park is a perfect example. Sorry all you dog owners but until EVERY dog owner is a responsible dog owner (clean up after your dog and keep the animal on leash at all times), I do not want the National Parks to allow dogs. Actually if the Park Service folks would fine these offenders and hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts it might help matters. It's too bad that a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel for dog owners.

Kurt,

You mention "mostly dogs." I'd be interested to hear what other non-dog pets people have seen at national parks, if any. People don't usually travel with them, but I would note that what were presumably pet pythons have turned into a scurge in the Everglades and beyond. I'm sure it varies by what kind of animal you bring to a park, but you obviously have to be careful in some cases that your "pets" don't get loose in a park and start competing with native wildlife.

I'd also note that animals like coyotes like to eat little dogs, so you have to be careful.

I think it depends upon the park. It is more than just loose dogs and public safety. Research shows that dogs engaged in scent marking can affect wildlife patterns. They also decrease the likelihood of viewing wildlife from trails where dogs are common because herbivores and prey animals tend to stay away from those areas. Dogs must be on a leash no longer than 6 feet according to park regulations - a rule often ignored by dog owners. If the trail is in a more urban setting, historic park, or disturbed area, I think having a dog restrained on the 6 foot leaseh and picking up after them is OK, Otherwise, national parks are not the place for bringing pets. There are a lot of other places. After all, it's not like Fido is going to appreciate the view of Half Dome.

Great topic Kurt ;)

As I understand it, there are two major objections to dogs in the parks. 1) Dog poops 2) potential conflicts with animals/other users.

My experience in hiking in National Forest and Wilderness areas - where dogs are allowed, there is far less evidence of dog poops (which are fully biodegradable in a relatively short period of time) and far more evidence of human waste - i.e cans, bottles (which last forever) and even the poopy kind usually crowned with a wad of toilet paper. Talk about disgusting!

As to conflicts, a leashed dog has no reason to have a conflict with animal or human. Will owners violate the leash rules? Perhaps - but then those same owners are likely to violate any other rule in the park - including bringing dogs on the trail. Its these owners (and the other litterers) that should be banned - not dogs.

I too have been on both sides of the fence on this issue. Many summers ago I traveled with my dog and visited several National Parks. There were many trails I couldn't take because I just couldn't leave my dog in a hot car. Now I am a Park Ranger and I better understand why dogs aren't allowed on trails. Although on the North Rim we do have one pet friendly trail, not a rim view but a forest walk. I constantly encounter visitors taking their dogs on trails clearly marked "No Dogs." Some think that carrying the dog makes it OK. Not so. But then only 10 percent of people read signs anyway. Maybe if more trails were dog friendly that could help the problem. Or if more parks offered good kennels, which would have to be operated by a private concession. Or better yet, go to the usually adjacent National Forests with pets. I for one love animals, yet don't want to walk in poop or listen to some noisy yapper which unfortunately seems to happen most in the park's campground. Guess I better find out "what is the fine Ranger?"

Gila Cliff Dwellings has a shaded set of kennels behind the visitor contact station, staffed by volunteers, for visitors to leave their pets in a cool place while hiking the trail to the sites. Nice idea.

Great item for discussion. I suspect the issue is largely about dogs on leases. Other pets are seldom on lease and trained.

Our greatest danger is regulation that is all or nothing; i.e., they are banned everywhere or they are allowed everywhere. There are no doubt many specific parks where there are strong ecological reasons to ban even dogs on lease; Isle Royale is a good example. Other parks with significant drop-offs beside narrow trails, might be another example where safety concerns would appropriately eliminate the possibility of opening those trails to dogs. The idea of allowing dogs on lease on the same trails as horses might work, although the horse concessioner would no doubt argue that the dog and horse interaction would cause danger for his riders and there are many park trails open to horse or mule that would not be appropriate for dogs on lease. The problem is suffficiently complex that it is difficult to apply a single standard across the NPS and this results in visitors facing different rules in different parks - yet the diversity of our parks demands that we avoid simple all or nothing solutions.

The other problem, as with all things that involve human nature, is that not everyone is responsibile with well trained dogs. If every person's dog was leased, well trained to walk beside them and not investigate every other person they meet, and the owner consistently picked up the waste, other visitors would have little problem and the park resources would not be impacted beyond what they are experiencing with people. However, this is not reality. I would hope NPS top management does not direct that all park trails be opened to dogs on leases.

MikeD:
As for wilderness, it seems to me that the leave no trace ethic applies even more so there, and so the "threat" of dog doo doo is even greater there.

Dogs are almost universally allowed in wilderness areas, with the exception of NPS land. Heck - hunting is allowed in most wilderness areas outside of the NPS. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are generally more laid back about what they allow in their designated wilderness.

There was a woman in Shenandoah who asked if any pet was allowed as long as it was on a leash. When told it applied to all pets, out came her pet chicken on a leash!

I was going to make some snarky comment about "dogs on leases", as if they were being rented for a defined period. However - I'm in a good mood today.

Dogs have been a tricky issue at Golden Gate National Recreation Area - primarily with the land that was handed over to the NPS from the City and County of San Francisco with the understanding that the traditional off-leash dog areas would remain that way.

From a safety perspective I wouldn't want to see dogs allowed in bear country. This is a case where dogs and horses probably shouldn't be equated. I'm told a horse actually decreases your chance of a dangerous bear encounter while a dog will increase it.

Can't we have one place in this entire country where there isn't dog crap to be stepped in?

Chrissy Field. Hold the line! Enough said.

I kinda like the "No Children" rule until they learn to behave.

Dogs on horse trails equals potential mishaps. Many dogs have never seen a horse and would get aggressive, defensive, barking, jumping around, etc. A long leash gets tangled around a horse's leg and somebody's not gonna feel so good!
Perhaps there could be a select few trails where leashed dogs would be OK, just to see how it goes. For example, one on either side of the Rocky Mountain park, and monitor for a year to see how it goes. Mandatory pickup, of course. And how about a health certificate for Fido, just like we need for our horses?
Finally, let's reserve one trail in each park where there are no children, no musical/auditory devices that can be heard more than 1 foot from the user, and where hikers must take an intelligence test. Sample question: If you see a large moose by the side of the trail you should: a) Yell "Hey guys, it's a moose," as loud as you can; b) sneak up close and pat it; c) stop, watch, take a picture, enjoy.

As a dog owner who formerly lived in a national park, and as a traveler who has visited many, many national parks, it amazes me the broad spectrum of dog acceptance within the NPS system. Petrified Forest NP allows dogs on trails, and I've had some of the most delightful walks there with my dogs. Grand Canyon, where I lived, has a rim trail on the South Rim that allows dogs, but nowhere else. A quiet morning walk along the rim with my dogs was a wonderful experience. Then you have Bryce Canyon, where dogs aren't even allowed at the overlooks. Why?

Perhaps dog-friendly trails, as posted several times above, would be a step in the right direction. Of course, there would have to be rules - leashed, pick up your dog's poop, etc. But it would enable travelers to experience the park with their four-legged companions, reduce the possibility of dogs dying in hot cars, and inprove the public's view of how NPS accommodates the visitor.

I love my dog, but don't travel with her. I think most dogs, even those who are well-behaved, are likely to bark at and frighten wildlife, so I would probably say "no" to dogs on most trails in the national parks. I did see two dogs on my recent trip to Sequoia, one was in a tote bag and the other in a pillow case! Both were at the General Sherman Tree and on the shuttle. Stranger yet, on our return trip we stopped at Goblin Valley State Park in Utah where we saw some people walking with their pet lamb!

It is always interesting to see/hear dog owners claim that their dog(s) are well behaved, friendly, leashed, and always cleaned up after. As a walker, and frequent visitor to public parks and our wonderful National Parks, I must state that encountering any dog while on a path or trail is an uncomfortable experience. One, I'm sure, many dog owners cannot understand. We humans do not all love dogs. I do not dislike them, I am just uncomfortable around them. They do not announce themselves as non biters, nippers, lickers, jumpers, poopers, etc. They just should not be in places with a lot of humans. Allowing dogs on the trails of our National Parks would, I fear, just drive the rest of us from frequenting them.

Karl:
From a safety perspective I wouldn't want to see dogs allowed in bear country. This is a case where dogs and horses probably shouldn't be equated. I'm told a horse actually decreases your chance of a dangerous bear encounter while a dog will increase it.

All depends. Dogs are typically allowed on Forest Service and BLM lands where there are bears. In fact, dogs are sometimes used in legal bear hunts to track and sometimes tree bears. I've certainly hiked in Forest Service trails and met dogs. I really didn't see it as an issue.

National Parks need special places for visitors to walk their
pets since they often have been traveling long distances in warm vehicles.
At Crater Lake, Sequoia and Redwood NP,
while serving as either a volunteer interpreter or uniformed naturalist,
I have found that pets provide an
opportunity to meet very interesting people since all pet owners love talking
about their "furry family child"; once "the ice is broken" people feel
more relaxed to inquire about park issues with very
interesting questions providing them a more rewarding park experience.
So, the Lesson is focus on the Positive, and Assist visitors with their
daily park reality issues including furry person exercise. Parks are for
People, including furry ones on a leash; wildlife issues need to be addressed
too, but most local, short trails provide little opportunity for pet/wildlife conflicts.
(all within the context of Reasonable). At Redwood, a park born in Controversy,
an error was made to prohibit dogs on what became the Lady Bird Johnson Grove
Trail on October 2nd, 1968. Prior to the NP, this "Trail" was an old county road/track
used by local residents/visitors; so, immediately the negative "Don'ts"
in NP Regulations became more hated. I understand dogs are now permitted on
this same short Loop Trail which is only Common Sense, I believe. All national parks
need/require a local constituency of citizens to defend their unique resource values.

It is inappropriate for dogs to enter our national parks. The only non-human animals I want to see in the parks are those that live wild there. I don't know of any wild animal who welcomes a dog into his territory. The parks should be reserved for the animals who live there and the humans who appreciate there presence. Humans who harrass wild animals and dogs, who almost all will alarm a wild animal, should be totally prohibited from national parks.

I just wish the rules would be enforced, whatever they may be. I have dogs and love to travel with them. Yet, often when we are going to visit a NP, we leave them at home in a kennel (and always come home to a pretty significant kennel bill). So, while I am missing my dogs and paying dearly for their care, I often find many people in NPs with their dogs and no concern whatsoever for the rule. I have pictures of people with their dogs right in front of the "no dogs" sign... I have told rangers about people with dogs and all I get in response is a shrug of the shoulders and a "what can you do". So, if dogs aren't allowed, mine will stay home and I'll continue to wish they were with me and continue to pay the kennel bill. But let's enforce the rule so that the people breaking the rules understand they too should leave their dogs at home as well. Otherwise, I'll start bringing mine with me on my NP trips.

As for the no dogs... no kids... no cars... my only complaint is the adults. I have pictures of a grandma and mom both with huge bouquets of flowers from a trail in Cedar Breaks, a picture of a dad throwing a coke can into Grand Canyon of Yellowstone, another dad throwing quarters into a geyser, people hiking off trail (in a clearly marked "stay on trail" area in Canyonlands and the list goes on and on. Seems to me the damage that these "intelligent adults" are causing are much more severe than a dog hiking on a trail.

At first, I was going to say that the regulations should not be changed because there are too many irresponsible pet owners; but, then I remembered that if this rationalization were carried out to its logical conclusion, all humans would be banned because of the irresponsible behavior of some -- such as those who get too close to bison to get a better picture of it.

Once in Yellowstone my then 10 year old asked me in a very calm voice why people bring dogs to the park. Her comment was overheard by a woman sitting under a tree with her dogs. She threatened to shoot my daughter for her questiion yelling that the dogs were her babies and if she had a gun she would use it! It's not dogs but dog owners that are the problem, especially when they allow the dog to bark at park animals or chase the animals when running off leash. I love dogs but they do not belong in National Parks.

As a Full-time Rver, who both has worked in and regularly visits National Parks, leaving my dog 'at home' or in a kennel really isn't an option. Living in a National Park means your dog is restricted to walks on the campground roads. Luckily most parks have National Forest land nearby where your dog can run free. I have found no difference on the Forest Service trails than the National Park trails. Yes, I did see an occasional person with their dogs off leash on the Forest Service trails but I have never had to watch my every step to avoid dog waste. I have seen people in restricted areas, harassing wildlife, defacing trees, and disposing of their waste properly but we still allow them to roam free in the parks. There are miles and miles of trails in our National Parks. I think our four legged friends deserve at least a couple of trails to stretch their legs on.

National and State parks should have accommodations for pets. All they need is a little space for running around that is specific for animals. That way it gives the people with pets a place to go and leaves the people without pets that do not want to be around others pets a place also.

I'm a dog owner. And frankly, so many other dog owners annoy me. I'd rather not have to deal with them in a park.

I love my dog. But she's my DOG, not my CHILD. She doesn't really care whether she's chasing a ball in a parking lot down the street, or in a unique Wonder of the World at a national park. I'm happy to leave her home.

I am not a dog person so I don't understand nor can I appreciate the feelings that some people have towards their 4 legged friends. I have seen them locked up inside of campers, I would imagine that they would probably prefer to be running in there own surroundings rather than being cooped up. When I see them they're usually barking their heads off the whole time! I have been to the Parks and have had people behave irresponsibly with their dogs. They bark at any animal that moves, coyotes, rabbits and even at moose. Not every dog owner is that irresponsible but since that has been my experience the vast majority of time, I would say no.

National parks are wildlife sanctuaries and the policy of keeping dogs off trails is a sound one.

On a recent trip to Yosemite Valley, visitors with dogs on the main walking/biking trails clearly obstructed the pathways. You see, while the dogs are on a "leash" - they are on 16 foot reels and the dogs are allowed to wander all over the place, while keeping with regulations. A bicyclist came to a sudden stop and asked a woman with a dog on a reel leash to retract the leash and unfortunately, words were exchanged. The woman took offense as if one was reprimanding a child. It's a dog.

Basel:
National parks are wildlife sanctuaries and the policy of keeping dogs off trails is a sound one.

On a recent trip to Yosemite Valley, visitors with dogs on the main walking/biking trails clearly obstructed the pathways. You see, while the dogs are on a "leash" - they are on 16 foot reels and the dogs are allowed to wander all over the place, while keeping with regulations. A bicyclist came to a sudden stop and asked a woman with a dog on a reel leash to retract the leash and unfortunately, words were exchanged. The woman took offense as if one was reprimanding a child. It's a dog.

That's not keeping up with the regulations. The rules say the dog must be on no more than a 6 ft leash. Those adjustable dog leads can be locked at a fixed length, and the owner should have done as such.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/pets.htm

Pets must be restrained on a leash not more than six feet long or otherwise physically restrained

I am a NPS superintendent, and am also very active in a variety of dog-related avocational interests (tracking, agility, etc.). My dogs are my constant outdoor companions. A few years back, I entered into this very discussion with an associate regional director with science in their portfolio. I challenged that ARD to produce any defensible, empirical science that had been conducted that demonstrated adverse impacts that dogs had on either visitor experience or park resources. Over the next several weeks I was forwarded a variety subjective articles that articulated many of the above arguments, and also a few pieces of purported science that, IMO, were more correctly anecdotal supposition. The bottom line for me - as is the case with most "animal problems" (dog, bear, bison, whatever), what we are discussing here is more correctly a people problem. We don't bar cars from parks because some people drive recklessly. We don't bar children from the parks because some delinquents spray graffiti on park walls. We don't bar alcohol from parks because some people over imbibe. Why bar dogs because some owners are irresponsible?

As a Park Ranger who is faced with all too many folks who do not take the time to read, understand, and follow park regulations and then complain when you try to politely tell them that they are in violation and educate them about the law, I'd LOVE to see dogs/pets be banned for good from the parks. Like everyone else has said in their posts, there are usually other places you can take them, so why do you insist on breaking the regulations and complain when you are issued a citation. What gets me even more is when I am polite and helpful, I am the one who gets told and yelled at about how bad the law is and how stupid it is and that the pets don't hurt anything. And PLEASE pet owners, realize that there are regulations and laws in most of the parks about leaving your pets locked in your cars while you are off hiking even if it is not hot out it's still leaving an unattended pet in a vehicle, like leaving your so called "child" in there huh.... Another point, tieing your pet to an object such as a picknick table then leaving it is not ok either. The 15 foot of climbing rope around your dogs neck is not within the regulations, you must maintain control on a leash no longer than 6 feet. Just leave them at home and if you can't then travel to other areas such as the BLM or Forest Service lands that have a different mission and different purpose than the national parks. What makes anyone think that pet owners who can't already follow regulations are going to follow new ones any better? My vote is NO DOGS period..