Crickette Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I was openly critical of a hiker who, against posted leash laws, took her dog on an exposed summit unleashed. The dog chased a mountain goat and fell and was injured. A couple posters (KirkW, Num1Num (I think) accused me of 'being mean to dogs'. I am not mean to dogs, I own two dogs and love them dearly. I think it is unreasonable for dog owners to expose their pets to unnecessary risks while ignoring posted leash laws that would have prevented the accident. I was there that day, coming down, when we stopped to talk to the owner. She was ascending with her companion and dog, above the winter chute, below the summit. There was one goat acting more aggressive than usual and we warned the owner beforehand then continued down not knowing what happened till the posting on CC. Fortunately, it turned out well and the people who helped were amazing. My dog had 4 wheel overdrive on the snow and was the best hiking/xc ski/swimming partner. We used to stick Foster's beer in her pack for over nighters. The Cody dog would make a great tent mate...extra warmth and probably a great cuddler. Quote
DPS Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) I believe I learned something today. And it would appear Daniel is correct. A leash law is in effect on Mt. Ellinor. http://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/pets.htm "Leashed pets are allowed on trails in Olympic National Forest. Please note that this is a different entity than Olympic National Park." http://www.petfriendlytravel.com/?page=national_parks#Washington Olympic National Forest "Pets on a leash are allowed on trails in Olympic National Forest." Thanks Dane. num1mc has no problem lying about me, but I don't lie and I do at least a modicum of research. Edited April 4, 2012 by DPS Quote
Dane Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 I had a pretty heated discussion this week with another climber. I know this is spray and all but the word "Lying" is a pretty strong accusation in any context. I prefer "miscommunication" unless the stronger version is actually required for context. Life is short and thank God we are only talking about something trivial like climbing Quote
AlpineK Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I was openly critical of a hiker who, against posted leash laws Not only are you mean to dogs, you also lie about them. There are no leash laws on Mount Elinor I believe I learned something today. And it would appear Daniel is correct. A leash law is in effect on Mt. Ellinor. http://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/pets.htm "Leashed pets are allowed on trails in Olympic National Forest. Please note that this is a different entity than Olympic National Park." http://www.petfriendlytravel.com/?page=national_parks#Washington Olympic National Forest "Pets on a leash are allowed on trails in Olympic National Forest." Thanks Dane. num1mc has no problem lying about me, but I don't lie and I do at least a modicum of research. :kisss: not Quote
Off_White Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I had a pretty heated discussion this week with another climber. I know this is spray and all but the word "Lying" is a pretty strong accusation in any context. I prefer "miscommunication" unless the stronger version is actually required for context. Life is short and thank God we are only talking about something trivial like climbing Yes, one can be wrong, but lying involves a level of intention that makes it a pretty serious accusation. Quote
DPS Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I was neither wrong nor lying. num1mc was both wrong (there is a leash law on Mt Ellinor) and lied about me (I'm not mean to dogs, despite what my intentionally ironic tag line may indicate). Quote
YocumRidge Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 The Cody dog would make a great tent mate...extra warmth and probably a great cuddler. Yeah, Codsky is like that. Although he does not enjoy being squeezed in a tent, an open bivy is more his thing. If things dont go according to a plan, he will ride on a back of your skis. Embrace extra 150 lbs then! Quote
num1mc Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Just got off the phone with ONF. Dogs are not, repeat not, required to be leashed. They must be under control, which Sasha was not. But those that insist that dogs must be leashed should contact the United States Federal Government. Quote
jon Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I had to put my EggMcMuffin down to participate in this important thread. http://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/pets.htm Leashed pets are allowed on trails in Olympic National Forest. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/olympic/learning/safety-ethics/?cid=fsbdev3_049550 Pets must always be restrained (under physical control) or on a leash. Quote
num1mc Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 NPS websites are not the best source of USNF regulations Quote
DPS Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Just got off the phone with ONF. Dogs are not, repeat not, required to be leashed. They must be under control, which Sasha was not. That is very hard to believe, especially given that the rules are written down on official UNFS websites for all to read and they very clearly state pets must be leashed. Very few public spaces allow unleashed pets. I have a call in to verify. I will report back when the rangers return my call. Quote
num1mc Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Just got off the phone with ONF. Dogs are not, repeat not, required to be leashed. They must be under control, which Sasha was not. That is very hard to believe, especially given that the rules are written down on official UNFS websites for all to read and they very clearly state pets must be leashed. Very few public spaces allow unleashed pets. I have a call in to verify. I will report back when the rangers return my call. All the links so far have been NPS. Most USNF's require "under control". Why do you need to verify? Are you calling me a lier? Are you calling the USFS employee I taklked to a lier? Quote
max Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Can y'all start using the right initials? USFS, not USNF. check it on their website. Quote
Dane Posted April 5, 2012 Author Posted April 5, 2012 Fook me running it is LIAR not LIER for a start. I am not the best speller in the world but even I got that one. Physical restraint as in a leash is common...unleashed and "restrained" as in voice command is a totally different deal. Obviously Sasha was not under voice command. Either way Sasha's owners were not in compliance with what ever the "law" is in Oly Nat. Forest. They are still irresponsible idiots. May be they should join in this thread as well. If you two want to have a battle of whits ya all should have at least come armed. Rocky would have done control bites on both of you by now. I'd be inclined to let him chew on ya at his descretion after that Quote
112 Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Leash laws suck ass, but irresponsible owners are worse! Quote
Dane Posted April 5, 2012 Author Posted April 5, 2012 Some just don't know how to ask politely and don't ask twice Quote
YocumRidge Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Apparently, FA of the Tahoma Gl. on Rainier on Aug 11, 1981 was by Philemon B.Van Trump, Alfred Drewry, Dr. Warren Riley and Riley's dog (deerhound). Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.