If You Love the Wilderness, Keep Your Dog Out of It
September 17, 2017 11:34 PM Subscribe
An interview with backpacking guide Marjorie "Slim" Woodruff on the costs of egocentrism in the backcountry:
Education only works if people are open to change. I think hikers have to undergo a personal epiphany which changes their paradigm. Dog owners are so emotionally caught up in their animal, it is difficult to convince them to change.
I do not envy someone trying to tell dog owners that their babies are not the most important thing on the face of the planet.
posted by fullerine at 12:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [53 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 12:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [53 favorites]
It's definitely a huge bummer to keep your dog on a leash on any kind of hike. That's why I leave mine at home for such activities. It took a couple of experiments to really get it through to me. I mostly don't go to parks now. There is no joke or irony in this post.
posted by mwhybark at 12:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by mwhybark at 12:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
Ok wait this is a derail but now I'm fascinated, why is dogshit so uniquely bad or whatever? Googling around I see lots of things about parasites and fecal coliform bacteria but why wouldn't other animal poop also have those things?
posted by Wretch729 at 12:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 12:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yes, dog shit is more likely to be stepped in by a hiker because dogs are vastly more likely to shit in areas that are heavily trafficked by humans. More to the point, it is likely to contain harmful parasites that damage the local ecosystem.
posted by mikek at 12:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by mikek at 12:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
Roughly, as I understand it, for the same reason that urban dog owners are required to bag their dog's turds when we walk them, on leash of course. Concentration of population promotes bloom in the watershed, increasing disease, and this is true in the wild as in the city, because where it's easy to get to, we bring the pooches.
So possibly, therefore, "back country" in the hed is a misnomer. Wevs. I bag the poop and stay in town, I don't know shit (except his).
posted by mwhybark at 12:44 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
So possibly, therefore, "back country" in the hed is a misnomer. Wevs. I bag the poop and stay in town, I don't know shit (except his).
posted by mwhybark at 12:44 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yes, although dogs and their parasites have not evolved locally to the particular environment and do have unique pathogens in their feces the primary problem is concentration. On a busy trail they might outnumber indigenous wildlife many times over. They are also very likely to shit in the areas most heavily trafficked by humans, which are often uniquely fragile.
posted by mikek at 12:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by mikek at 12:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Some comments removed. Let's not get into a massive derail on the relative slipperiness of various types of feces, also please do not try to blow up the thread with talk about killing people's pets on sight or similar. If you can't comment here without going all hyperbolic rage machine, better to just skip this discussion.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [27 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [27 favorites]
Not cleaning up after your dog is similar to leaving waste of any sort behind in a park - foreign objects upset the local ecosystem. As the saying goes, take only photographs and leave only footprints (and sometimes even that is too much).
posted by dazed_one at 1:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by dazed_one at 1:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
But, but, but, MAH DAWG NEEDS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THA NATURES!
posted by Samizdata at 1:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by Samizdata at 1:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
I do not envy someone trying to tell dog owners that their babies are not the most important thing on the face of the planet.
Pets are the new smoking.
posted by ethical_caligula at 1:45 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
Pets are the new smoking.
posted by ethical_caligula at 1:45 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
I love dogs to the point I've been debating getting one - but I'm pro-leashes and anti letting one's dog run amok in public parks and wild spaces.
I mean, if you have one of those dogs that actually magically heels, takes orders and otherwise behaves like it has a leash on even when it doesn't - or otherwise behaves better than most humans, then maybe, sure. And if that's the case you might as well keep them on a lead because that kind of dog would understand it's the rules because of the other bad dogs ruining it for everyone else.
There are many, many reasons to keep your (proverbial) dog on leash in public parks or wild areas or basically anywhere that isn't a dog park or your own yard or something:
Your dog might be friendly. The other dog that's on a leash that it's approaching might not be.
The human your dog is approaching might have serious dog or pet allergies that can trigger life threatening attacks.
The human your dog is approaching may have a serious phobia about dogs. Or maybe they just don't like dogs and don't want to interact with your dog.
Your dog doesn't know what poison ivy is, or rattle snakes, or toxic fungi, or what a cliff is, and could seriously injure itself. Very few dogs have the common sense to not immediately wolf down, say, a free bag of magic chocolate space brownies dropped in the forest by some hippie.
Your dog may seriously damage and injure local plants running around off trail.
Your dog may seriously injure or kill local wildlife.
Note that most of these basically boil down to issues of consent and safety, especially when it comes to human-dog and dog-dog interactions off leash.
I've been camping and had people come through the trails passing near/through the campsites with offleash dogs and had one run under my rain fly and very nearly knock over my lit stove and dinner.
There's something like a $150-200 fine for off leash dogs in this state park, and the dog's owner had the cherries to get mad at me for trying to warn him his dog almost lit me and my camp on fire and nearly got face full of boiling water. Buddy, you're technically walking through my temporary legal domicile with an offleash dog, here, what the fuck, and I'm trying to help you out because I really don't want to see your derpy dog get hurt.
posted by loquacious at 1:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [85 favorites]
I mean, if you have one of those dogs that actually magically heels, takes orders and otherwise behaves like it has a leash on even when it doesn't - or otherwise behaves better than most humans, then maybe, sure. And if that's the case you might as well keep them on a lead because that kind of dog would understand it's the rules because of the other bad dogs ruining it for everyone else.
There are many, many reasons to keep your (proverbial) dog on leash in public parks or wild areas or basically anywhere that isn't a dog park or your own yard or something:
Your dog might be friendly. The other dog that's on a leash that it's approaching might not be.
The human your dog is approaching might have serious dog or pet allergies that can trigger life threatening attacks.
The human your dog is approaching may have a serious phobia about dogs. Or maybe they just don't like dogs and don't want to interact with your dog.
Your dog doesn't know what poison ivy is, or rattle snakes, or toxic fungi, or what a cliff is, and could seriously injure itself. Very few dogs have the common sense to not immediately wolf down, say, a free bag of magic chocolate space brownies dropped in the forest by some hippie.
Your dog may seriously damage and injure local plants running around off trail.
Your dog may seriously injure or kill local wildlife.
Note that most of these basically boil down to issues of consent and safety, especially when it comes to human-dog and dog-dog interactions off leash.
I've been camping and had people come through the trails passing near/through the campsites with offleash dogs and had one run under my rain fly and very nearly knock over my lit stove and dinner.
There's something like a $150-200 fine for off leash dogs in this state park, and the dog's owner had the cherries to get mad at me for trying to warn him his dog almost lit me and my camp on fire and nearly got face full of boiling water. Buddy, you're technically walking through my temporary legal domicile with an offleash dog, here, what the fuck, and I'm trying to help you out because I really don't want to see your derpy dog get hurt.
posted by loquacious at 1:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [85 favorites]
take only photographs and leave only footprints
somehow, dog piss is exempt from this at my kids' elementary school. and every trail on the colorado front range.
there is a quarter mile segment at the beginning of a great local trail, that smells as if four dogs were kept in a basement for a year. without any clean up.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:58 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
somehow, dog piss is exempt from this at my kids' elementary school. and every trail on the colorado front range.
there is a quarter mile segment at the beginning of a great local trail, that smells as if four dogs were kept in a basement for a year. without any clean up.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:58 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
However, too many people have an egocentric approach to outdoor recreation. They don’t particularly care it their actions affect other people or even the environment. I am often told, “We’re just trying to have a good time,” when they are drawing on the rocks, or building an illegal fire, or letting their dog run loose.
Nothing turns me into a total grouch faster than this. I can't tell you how many times I've come across people smoking on the trails, or blasting music from their backpacks as they hike along, or biking along super narrow horse trails where bikes aren't allowed (which seriously could have gotten someone killed), or traipsing along on the other side of a fence that clearly says to keep out of the wildlife rehabilitation area. I mean, come on, people.
We were hiking a local trail one time, and someone's dog ran around a corner at full speed and starting jumping all over me. Two hikers came up a minute later and said "oh, don't worry, she's friendly," which, I mean, I don't care. Stopping your dog from jumping all over people is a pretty basic dog-ownership thing. I was so furious -- I used to have a serious phobia about dogs, and I can't believe people would just let their dog do that to me.
I think part of the problem is that people will spend half an hour on a trail and they'll only see one or two other people. They won't consider that there's another couple people three minutes behind them, with another couple people three minutes behind them, etc. It's so easy for the woods to look so empty and quiet, when really they're very busy places. Sometimes I'll feel like I'm the only person in the woods, and I'll have to remind myself that there was a full parking lot when I arrived. I think everyone wants to feel like they're the only person in the woods, and it's a lot easier to justify something like smoking if you don't think anyone's ever going to smell it anyway (and if you smoke in the woods, you're being a huge jerk, especially in California during a historic drought).
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:01 AM on September 18, 2017 [61 favorites]
Nothing turns me into a total grouch faster than this. I can't tell you how many times I've come across people smoking on the trails, or blasting music from their backpacks as they hike along, or biking along super narrow horse trails where bikes aren't allowed (which seriously could have gotten someone killed), or traipsing along on the other side of a fence that clearly says to keep out of the wildlife rehabilitation area. I mean, come on, people.
We were hiking a local trail one time, and someone's dog ran around a corner at full speed and starting jumping all over me. Two hikers came up a minute later and said "oh, don't worry, she's friendly," which, I mean, I don't care. Stopping your dog from jumping all over people is a pretty basic dog-ownership thing. I was so furious -- I used to have a serious phobia about dogs, and I can't believe people would just let their dog do that to me.
I think part of the problem is that people will spend half an hour on a trail and they'll only see one or two other people. They won't consider that there's another couple people three minutes behind them, with another couple people three minutes behind them, etc. It's so easy for the woods to look so empty and quiet, when really they're very busy places. Sometimes I'll feel like I'm the only person in the woods, and I'll have to remind myself that there was a full parking lot when I arrived. I think everyone wants to feel like they're the only person in the woods, and it's a lot easier to justify something like smoking if you don't think anyone's ever going to smell it anyway (and if you smoke in the woods, you're being a huge jerk, especially in California during a historic drought).
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:01 AM on September 18, 2017 [61 favorites]
Oh, man, the "service dog" thing really irks me and not just in parks. It's essentially pretending to have a disability just so you aren't inconvenienced or, worse, can selfishly annoy others under the guise of real need. It harms those who actually rely on trained animal care by creating a sense of disbelief about any claim of need given how frequent and damaging the false claims are. If you own a pet at least be honest about what that relationship is and don't play disabled to get your damn way.
Oh, and please keep your dogs under control and on leashes. Not all of us like dealing with loose animals, no matter how "friendly" you may say they are.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:11 AM on September 18, 2017 [38 favorites]
Oh, and please keep your dogs under control and on leashes. Not all of us like dealing with loose animals, no matter how "friendly" you may say they are.
posted by gusottertrout at 2:11 AM on September 18, 2017 [38 favorites]
"Don't worry, he's friendly"
Then why the fuck is he running at me!? God I hate dogs. Which shouldn't be a problem - to each their own. Except that so many dog owners think it's their God-given right to inflict their daft animals on the rest of us in public. I don't mind a dog on a lead, but I bloody do mind it running or jumping at me. Somehow, most dog owners think this makes me the problem, not them letting their dog off its leash in the centre of town. I just want to be left alone.
posted by Dysk at 2:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
Then why the fuck is he running at me!? God I hate dogs. Which shouldn't be a problem - to each their own. Except that so many dog owners think it's their God-given right to inflict their daft animals on the rest of us in public. I don't mind a dog on a lead, but I bloody do mind it running or jumping at me. Somehow, most dog owners think this makes me the problem, not them letting their dog off its leash in the centre of town. I just want to be left alone.
posted by Dysk at 2:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
There’s not much you could call ‘wilderness’ in the places I go birding around London, but there are places which have signs asking people to keep dogs on leads in the summer because of ground-nesting birds. I don’t know whether they have any effect at all, but it certainly doesn’t feel like it.
Lots of people like the idea of protecting the environment in the abstract, right up until it would inconvenience them. And so the natural world gets steadily more and more damaged.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 2:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
Lots of people like the idea of protecting the environment in the abstract, right up until it would inconvenience them. And so the natural world gets steadily more and more damaged.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 2:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
People think that rules they don't like must be exaggerations to protect against extreme forms of rule breaking, but not whatever it is they want to do.
posted by timdiggerm at 2:57 AM on September 18, 2017 [59 favorites]
posted by timdiggerm at 2:57 AM on September 18, 2017 [59 favorites]
I don't really have a super solid position on dogs in the backcountry (I understand the arguments on both sides) but I'm not sure if the obvious compromise—keeping dogs on leash—is a great solution. Hiking trails are frequently narrow and steep enough that having a dog on a leash is both inconvenient and dangerous. My WEMT instructor had a story of someone they had had tonrescue because their on-leash dog spooked on a steep section of trail, causing both dog and human to go tumbling into the trees and be very badly hurt. (One or the other of them may not have survived, I don't remember how the story ended.) And there are definitely many, many trails where "keep your dog leashed" would effectively mean "don't bring your dog" just due to the nature of the trail. So what seems like a reasonable compromise on the face of it isn't necessarily much of a compromise at all.
Dogs definitely can be a problem in the backcountry but so can, like, trekking poles. And I like meeting dogs on the trail; trail dogs are some of the happiest dogs I've ever seen, and at least where I hike they pretty much always seem to be actually on the trail, nor have I ever encountered dog shit except very occasionally at the very beginning of some of the most heavily-trafficked trails in my heavily-trafficked backcountry. And people definitely bond with their dogs in the backcountry; there are many folks for whom a dog is their main hiking companion. So obviously there's a huge emotional component, which isn't nothing given that it's essentially an emotional experience that people are seeking when they go to the woods or the mountains. But yes, I can see that they must damage the plants near the trail and I understand that some other folks don't like them and a bunch of dog shit is certainly not what I'm looking to find in the woods. So I waffle on this one. It's a bit like telling people they can't have a fire; there are good reasons for it, but it's so central to many people's experience of the backcountry that for a lot of folks you might as well be telling them to stay home.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
Dogs definitely can be a problem in the backcountry but so can, like, trekking poles. And I like meeting dogs on the trail; trail dogs are some of the happiest dogs I've ever seen, and at least where I hike they pretty much always seem to be actually on the trail, nor have I ever encountered dog shit except very occasionally at the very beginning of some of the most heavily-trafficked trails in my heavily-trafficked backcountry. And people definitely bond with their dogs in the backcountry; there are many folks for whom a dog is their main hiking companion. So obviously there's a huge emotional component, which isn't nothing given that it's essentially an emotional experience that people are seeking when they go to the woods or the mountains. But yes, I can see that they must damage the plants near the trail and I understand that some other folks don't like them and a bunch of dog shit is certainly not what I'm looking to find in the woods. So I waffle on this one. It's a bit like telling people they can't have a fire; there are good reasons for it, but it's so central to many people's experience of the backcountry that for a lot of folks you might as well be telling them to stay home.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
I don't see how "don't take your dog on a trail that's unsafe for dogs" is an unreasonable thing.
posted by thelonius at 3:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [69 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 3:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [69 favorites]
I guess I sort of feel like at bottom, it's people who are a problem in the backcountry. There are just a lot of us! Where I am, lots of forested trails are getting worn down literally to bedrock just from the sheer passage of people's feet. There's another hiking boom going on right now, and it's not clear that anybody has a solution for the impacts it's causing. Banning dogs won't fix the problem, although it might be a necessary step.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:26 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:26 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Well, trails that are perfectly safe for unleashed dogs might not be safe for a dog that has a rope tied around its neck.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well, trails that are perfectly safe for unleashed dogs might not be safe for a dog that has a rope tied around its neck.
And you can't have an unleashed dog. So, don't take your dog on those trails?
posted by thelonius at 3:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
And you can't have an unleashed dog. So, don't take your dog on those trails?
posted by thelonius at 3:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
Right, which is why telling people "keep your dog leashed" can effectively mean "no dogs allowed," which was my point.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
And, like, being charged on by a dog on a trail doesn't mean it's not friendly. In my experience, 100% of the time it means that the dog is just excited to meet you. An unfriendly dog will freeze, crouch, put its ears back and hackles up, growl, bark, etc. Charging just means they're happy to see you. I'm not saying it's good behavior (it's not) but it doesn't mean aggression.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's a bit like telling people they can't have a fire; there are good reasons for it, but it's so central to many people's experience of the backcountry that for a lot of folks you might as well be telling them to stay home.
Unleashed and uncontrolled dogs are the main focus of the interview, but they're clearly just one instance of the larger problem. While hiking has become much more popular, its rise has not been accompanied by greater awareness of individual responsibility towards other hikers and the natural environment.
People behave like colossally selfish jackholes when they get into the wilderness. While solo hiking in the mountains I've run across unleashed dogs, smokers, and people with those obnoxious boombox speakers hanging from their packs. I'm sure all of them would insist that they are enjoying the outdoors in their own special and unique way, and would be offended (if not violently angry) if anyone told them they couldn't do so. And I can't even fathom the level of narcissism behind starting a fire where you aren't supposed to.
So yes, I am telling these people to either behave responsibly or stay home.
posted by informavore at 3:44 AM on September 18, 2017 [35 favorites]
Unleashed and uncontrolled dogs are the main focus of the interview, but they're clearly just one instance of the larger problem. While hiking has become much more popular, its rise has not been accompanied by greater awareness of individual responsibility towards other hikers and the natural environment.
People behave like colossally selfish jackholes when they get into the wilderness. While solo hiking in the mountains I've run across unleashed dogs, smokers, and people with those obnoxious boombox speakers hanging from their packs. I'm sure all of them would insist that they are enjoying the outdoors in their own special and unique way, and would be offended (if not violently angry) if anyone told them they couldn't do so. And I can't even fathom the level of narcissism behind starting a fire where you aren't supposed to.
So yes, I am telling these people to either behave responsibly or stay home.
posted by informavore at 3:44 AM on September 18, 2017 [35 favorites]
I definitely agree on the fires. If you're somebody who's going to have a fire in places where fires aren't permitted, I would rather you stay home. Totally with you there. I'm just not sure I'm ready to say the same thing about dogs, is all.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
I don't know about other countries, but in America we do have a pretty weird conception of wilderness that's based on this idea of "pristine, untouched" nature in areas that were actually inhabited for tens of thousands of years. I know descendants of the people who lived in Yosemite, and they're not all big fans of John Muir. The whole thing is very interesting and very weird when you get down to it -- we basically set aside parts of the country that are "nature," but they may look nothing like they did until relatively recently. (For an extreme example of this outside America, see how The Nature Conservancy "managed" a tract of the Amazon by barring access to an indigenous group who lived there on the basis that their 500 year old traditional practice of managing yucca groves wasn't "natural" -- while allowing access to an indigenous group who hadn't traditionally lived there, because their lifeways seemed to line up with the values of The Nature Conservancy).
I guess what sticks out at me is that there's this sense of access to these parks being a right and a privilege. It can drive very positive behavior like Leave No Trace, but it can also drive people to climb on Devil's Tower in spite of local tribes' wishes because "the park is supposed to be for everyone." I'm not advocating for suddenly abandoning the principles that drive policies like Leave No Trace, because they're meant to preserve these parks as shared resources for as many people as possible. It means a lot to me to know that people respect each other, and are willing to respect the collective need above their own personal preferences. But the idea of a wilderness park is a really weird and fascinating one, and I think we take it for granted that there are wildly different ideas of what parks should be used for. I know people who don't care if their dogs shit in the woods, but I also know of people who are actively lobbying for the right to perform controlled burns in parkland because it's a traditional lifeway that has been denied for a long time. I'm not saying one is equivalent to the other by any means, but it says interesting things about the nature of parks.
Anyway, I'm totally rambling, but my point is that parks are interesting and weird, and if nothing else, it's really interesting to think about the mindsets that drive certain behaviors in them. As an admitted grouch, it's really easy for me to attribute certain behaviors in parks to selfishness, and it may very well be just that, but I think there's probably something more complex going on.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 3:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [20 favorites]
I guess what sticks out at me is that there's this sense of access to these parks being a right and a privilege. It can drive very positive behavior like Leave No Trace, but it can also drive people to climb on Devil's Tower in spite of local tribes' wishes because "the park is supposed to be for everyone." I'm not advocating for suddenly abandoning the principles that drive policies like Leave No Trace, because they're meant to preserve these parks as shared resources for as many people as possible. It means a lot to me to know that people respect each other, and are willing to respect the collective need above their own personal preferences. But the idea of a wilderness park is a really weird and fascinating one, and I think we take it for granted that there are wildly different ideas of what parks should be used for. I know people who don't care if their dogs shit in the woods, but I also know of people who are actively lobbying for the right to perform controlled burns in parkland because it's a traditional lifeway that has been denied for a long time. I'm not saying one is equivalent to the other by any means, but it says interesting things about the nature of parks.
Anyway, I'm totally rambling, but my point is that parks are interesting and weird, and if nothing else, it's really interesting to think about the mindsets that drive certain behaviors in them. As an admitted grouch, it's really easy for me to attribute certain behaviors in parks to selfishness, and it may very well be just that, but I think there's probably something more complex going on.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 3:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [20 favorites]
I would also be fine with a ban on amplified music, at least in certain areas. This is why headphones were invented. My favorite backcountry rule is one I saw posted when entering the Great Gulf wilderness area a couple weeks ago, and it was "please be quiet." As shapes says, our protected areas in America are often more about the illusion of wildness than wildness per se, and it helps to preserve the illusion if people don't make more noise than necessary.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
Charging just means they're happy to see you.
Except when it doesn't. And sure, if you've lived around dogs and seen them in all sorts of emotional states and know what to look for, the difference is pretty obvious. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of other people on the trail (who might not know dog body language, or might have a phobia of dogs, or might have been attacked by badly trained dogs, or might be frail [or just momentarily off balance on a steep trail] in ways that make even a friendly charging dog a serious threat) to make a split-second decision about whether your dog is just being friendly or is an immediate danger to life and limb. As it is, I'm surprised there aren't more injured dogs and people because a friendly dog charged a stranger and the stranger's lizard brains said "shitshitshit charging large predator, hit it in the head with a rock."
Even if your dog is well behaved, it's good citizenship to keep them visibly controlled around strangers, because so many dogs aren't particularly well-behaved, in the same way that if you're a big, intimidating man, it's good citizenship not to sit down right next to the small woman in the empty subway car: sure, you know that nothing bad's going to happen, but there's no way for anyone else to know that.
(And I say all of this as a lover of dogs, someone who's lived with large dogs for about half my life, who hasn't had a bad experience with a strange dog in twenty years).
posted by firechicago at 4:29 AM on September 18, 2017 [48 favorites]
Except when it doesn't. And sure, if you've lived around dogs and seen them in all sorts of emotional states and know what to look for, the difference is pretty obvious. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of other people on the trail (who might not know dog body language, or might have a phobia of dogs, or might have been attacked by badly trained dogs, or might be frail [or just momentarily off balance on a steep trail] in ways that make even a friendly charging dog a serious threat) to make a split-second decision about whether your dog is just being friendly or is an immediate danger to life and limb. As it is, I'm surprised there aren't more injured dogs and people because a friendly dog charged a stranger and the stranger's lizard brains said "shitshitshit charging large predator, hit it in the head with a rock."
Even if your dog is well behaved, it's good citizenship to keep them visibly controlled around strangers, because so many dogs aren't particularly well-behaved, in the same way that if you're a big, intimidating man, it's good citizenship not to sit down right next to the small woman in the empty subway car: sure, you know that nothing bad's going to happen, but there's no way for anyone else to know that.
(And I say all of this as a lover of dogs, someone who's lived with large dogs for about half my life, who hasn't had a bad experience with a strange dog in twenty years).
posted by firechicago at 4:29 AM on September 18, 2017 [48 favorites]
I'm sorry my dog ruined your concept of quiet nature but, you see, he's been at my side for 65,000 years....so, you know.
posted by 3200 at 4:34 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by 3200 at 4:34 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
That is an asshole argument, 3200. It represents exactly the kind of entitled attitude that people are complaining about.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:48 AM on September 18, 2017 [56 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:48 AM on September 18, 2017 [56 favorites]
I get this, I totally do, but it also seems like a bit of a misdirected axe to grind. I am a (responsible, I believe) dog owner and have been for many years. This means I don't bring my dog anywhere that dogs aren't allowed, and I only let him off leash if it's permitted. He has zero prey drive and is under voice command, well-behaved, non-aggressive, and I pick up his poop. If I see other people/kids/horses/livestock/etc. who seem anxious, he goes on a leash. I probably sound snooty but if my dog weren't all of these things, he wouldn't get to play in the wild. That said, I see tons and tons of dog owners who are not thusly responsible and it drives me bonkers. It's irresponsible and dangerous to the dog and other humans and animals. It's really too bad, and as the author alludes, surely a tragedy of the commons issue.
Having spent lots of time in the past decade or so in wilderness in the US and rest of the world, that there are plenty of humans who are surely much worse for the environment than dogs. As others above mentioned above, litter, smoking, music, going off trail, collecting, fires CARVING THEIR INITIALS IN A TREE, shitting and not burying it, etc. are undoubtedly worse on the backcountry than my well-behaved dog. It's also a bit funny to think about the concept of wilderness and nature when we can drive into it, on a paved road, with an RV, which is also surely more environmentally detrimental than well-behaved dogs?
posted by stillmoving at 4:49 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
Having spent lots of time in the past decade or so in wilderness in the US and rest of the world, that there are plenty of humans who are surely much worse for the environment than dogs. As others above mentioned above, litter, smoking, music, going off trail, collecting, fires CARVING THEIR INITIALS IN A TREE, shitting and not burying it, etc. are undoubtedly worse on the backcountry than my well-behaved dog. It's also a bit funny to think about the concept of wilderness and nature when we can drive into it, on a paved road, with an RV, which is also surely more environmentally detrimental than well-behaved dogs?
posted by stillmoving at 4:49 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
That is an asshole argument
And it's an outdated argument. It might have been fine 5000 years ago, hell, even 500. But not now, when there are over seven billions of us on this planet.
posted by hat_eater at 4:51 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
And it's an outdated argument. It might have been fine 5000 years ago, hell, even 500. But not now, when there are over seven billions of us on this planet.
posted by hat_eater at 4:51 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm sorry my dog ruined your concept of quiet nature but, you see, he's been at my side for 65,000 years....so, you know.
That's OK; next time I meet your dog, I'll eat it.
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:52 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
That's OK; next time I meet your dog, I'll eat it.
Historically, human consumption of dog meat has been recorded in many parts of the world, including East and Southeast Asia, West Africa, Europe, Oceania and the Americas.[2]dog meat
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:52 AM on September 18, 2017 [45 favorites]
People have also been marking up nature and changing it to suit our needs for that long, but the national parks are specifically meant to be an exception.
We can bring our dogs so many places. Why do you *need* to be that asshole who can't follow the rules in one of the few places dogs are prohibited?
posted by explosion at 4:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
We can bring our dogs so many places. Why do you *need* to be that asshole who can't follow the rules in one of the few places dogs are prohibited?
posted by explosion at 4:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
It's a bit like telling people they can't have a fire; there are good reasons for it, but it's so central to many people's experience of the backcountry that for a lot of folks you might as well be telling them to stay home.
Yes, they too should stay home. Great point.
posted by timdiggerm at 4:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [21 favorites]
Yes, they too should stay home. Great point.
posted by timdiggerm at 4:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [21 favorites]
Hi timdiggerm, you seem to have responded to my first comment without reading the rest of the thread first.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:04 AM on September 18, 2017
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:04 AM on September 18, 2017
Charging just means they're happy to see you.
Yeaaaah no. Also, people who are afraid of dogs usually have reason and it's a jerk move to trigger their fear just because you can't control your animal.
Also if the dog gets lost off-lead it's most likely dead. If people love their dogs so much, why the hell are they willing to risk the dog getting separated from them and dying in terror and pain? I have never understood that unique selfishness.
posted by winna at 5:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [29 favorites]
Yeaaaah no. Also, people who are afraid of dogs usually have reason and it's a jerk move to trigger their fear just because you can't control your animal.
Also if the dog gets lost off-lead it's most likely dead. If people love their dogs so much, why the hell are they willing to risk the dog getting separated from them and dying in terror and pain? I have never understood that unique selfishness.
posted by winna at 5:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [29 favorites]
Wow this has blown my mind. Here in Australia, all dogs are 100% totally banned from national parks, leash or no. The idea that you would take a dog into a national park here, at least one with trails and other people who would catch you, is preposterous.
I've been camping and hiking at many national parks here in Aus, and I've literally never seen a dog in one, and feel quite confident you would get into huge trouble if you did. Funny how cultural expectations play into stuff like this.
Now, if only we can get selfish motherf**kers to respect fire bans, especially around burning wood campfires, well it would be heavenly.
posted by smoke at 5:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [49 favorites]
I've been camping and hiking at many national parks here in Aus, and I've literally never seen a dog in one, and feel quite confident you would get into huge trouble if you did. Funny how cultural expectations play into stuff like this.
Now, if only we can get selfish motherf**kers to respect fire bans, especially around burning wood campfires, well it would be heavenly.
posted by smoke at 5:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [49 favorites]
I mean, you wouldn't bring your pet mountain lion to a pug picnic OR WOULD YOU
posted by um at 5:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by um at 5:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Pets are the new smoking.
Wait – I don't have any pets, but this morning I am going to be walking three dogs belonging to one neighbour who is working long hours today, and also this week I am looking after the cat of another neighbour who is at a conference. What am I in this metaphor?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:14 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
Wait – I don't have any pets, but this morning I am going to be walking three dogs belonging to one neighbour who is working long hours today, and also this week I am looking after the cat of another neighbour who is at a conference. What am I in this metaphor?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:14 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
Oh, man, the "service dog" thing really irks me and not just in parks. It's essentially pretending to have a disability just so you aren't inconvenienced or, worse, can selfishly annoy others under the guise of real need.
I have such mixed feelings about this, because I know people who I'm pretty sure say their dogs are service dogs when they're not registered. Up to a point, I know that this is about access to medical care - everyone I know who does this has very limited access to care for themselves and is in some distress. They're not lying when they say that their dogs do make it possible for them to manage getting through the day - I completely believe this. At the same time, these aren't trained dogs, and so they're in situations that are designed for actual trained service dogs and are not able to behave as such - they're good dogs, but a trained service dog is something different, and often a person who is in a lot of mental distress isn't really able to train their dog super well anyway.
It seems like the actual solution would be greater access to care (and housing and money) for poor people, so that the people who really do need service animals can either get their dogs trained or get a trained one.
At least among the people I know, it's not that they're terrible people - it's a structural problem where they dog really does help with a real problem, but the set-up isn't right because we don't have any social services.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
I have such mixed feelings about this, because I know people who I'm pretty sure say their dogs are service dogs when they're not registered. Up to a point, I know that this is about access to medical care - everyone I know who does this has very limited access to care for themselves and is in some distress. They're not lying when they say that their dogs do make it possible for them to manage getting through the day - I completely believe this. At the same time, these aren't trained dogs, and so they're in situations that are designed for actual trained service dogs and are not able to behave as such - they're good dogs, but a trained service dog is something different, and often a person who is in a lot of mental distress isn't really able to train their dog super well anyway.
It seems like the actual solution would be greater access to care (and housing and money) for poor people, so that the people who really do need service animals can either get their dogs trained or get a trained one.
At least among the people I know, it's not that they're terrible people - it's a structural problem where they dog really does help with a real problem, but the set-up isn't right because we don't have any social services.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
Yes, Smoke! My thoughts exactly. It feels as wrong as bringing your dog into a restaurant or pub or shopping mall. (Er, I guess in some parts of the world where dogs can go into all those places)
I canoed in Boundary Waters last year and I couldn't believe that in such a pristine area that there were people who'd brought their dogs with them.
posted by honey-barbara at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
I canoed in Boundary Waters last year and I couldn't believe that in such a pristine area that there were people who'd brought their dogs with them.
posted by honey-barbara at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
I wonder how many of these people who say "my dog must run free and unfettered" turn around and go "cats should be banned, they kill birds and OMG TOXOPLASMOSIS SCARY PLAGUE!"? Because dogs kill birds, and their poops aren't made of sterile rose petals, either.
"If you bring your pet into a public space, you must have it under your control and pick up its excrement" is really, really not too much to ask. You say your pet is your child - great! My cats are my children, too! - then apply the same damn standards you do to your human children to your dogs! Would you let your kids put their hands all over random strangers, yell in their faces, crap on the trails and torture wildlife? (Yes, of course, SOME parents do, but put this way it should make dog owners pause and think.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
"If you bring your pet into a public space, you must have it under your control and pick up its excrement" is really, really not too much to ask. You say your pet is your child - great! My cats are my children, too! - then apply the same damn standards you do to your human children to your dogs! Would you let your kids put their hands all over random strangers, yell in their faces, crap on the trails and torture wildlife? (Yes, of course, SOME parents do, but put this way it should make dog owners pause and think.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 5:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
The idea that people may be worse for the parks than dogs may indeed be true, but anyone who purposefully violates posted rules or, even worse, laws for their own pleasure is not someone I'd trust to be making decisions about what's 'best" in any circumstance. It's the same as the "Oh, I'm a safe driver, not like those other people, so when I break traffic laws it's okay" kind of thinking.
Unless one can demonstrate some real social harm being done then at least making a reasonable effort to follow the laws is necessary to ensure the most benefits for all. If a law or rules seem too strict or arbitrary, then find out their purpose and challenge them if necessary. Evading them for one's own pleasure at the expense of the comfort, or more, of others is simply selfish.
Any dog off leash in an area where that is forbidden tells me the person clearly evinces no interest in the well being of anyone beyond themselves and their pet. If that's the case I certainly can't trust them or their dog. This is also why I'd suggest challenging them is likely waste of time and may lead to an altercation, so proceed cautiously.
(None of this is to suggest I'm a dog hater. I like a great many dogs and have owned and cared for some myself. At the same time, I try to avoid those with bad owners as they often are not good to be around.)
posted by gusottertrout at 5:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Unless one can demonstrate some real social harm being done then at least making a reasonable effort to follow the laws is necessary to ensure the most benefits for all. If a law or rules seem too strict or arbitrary, then find out their purpose and challenge them if necessary. Evading them for one's own pleasure at the expense of the comfort, or more, of others is simply selfish.
Any dog off leash in an area where that is forbidden tells me the person clearly evinces no interest in the well being of anyone beyond themselves and their pet. If that's the case I certainly can't trust them or their dog. This is also why I'd suggest challenging them is likely waste of time and may lead to an altercation, so proceed cautiously.
(None of this is to suggest I'm a dog hater. I like a great many dogs and have owned and cared for some myself. At the same time, I try to avoid those with bad owners as they often are not good to be around.)
posted by gusottertrout at 5:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Well, trails that are perfectly safe for unleashed dogs might not be safe for a dog that has a rope tied around its neck.
If the trail is so narrow and steep that having a leashed dog with you is dangerous, then your unleashed dog charging strangers on that same trail (even if it's because it's excited to see them) puts those people in similar or greater danger, especially if they have a phobia of dogs. Given that those are the two options, I'm perfectly good with telling people to either stay home or risk their own lives.
posted by Dysk at 5:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [34 favorites]
If the trail is so narrow and steep that having a leashed dog with you is dangerous, then your unleashed dog charging strangers on that same trail (even if it's because it's excited to see them) puts those people in similar or greater danger, especially if they have a phobia of dogs. Given that those are the two options, I'm perfectly good with telling people to either stay home or risk their own lives.
posted by Dysk at 5:39 AM on September 18, 2017 [34 favorites]
Also if the dog gets lost off-lead it's most likely dead.
Some years ago I mentioned my erstwhile colleague Nick in the context of the shocking craftiness of ravens. He was usually the only staff onsite at a small cluster of cabins deep in Banff National Park; the only other place to stop off the highway anywhere nearby was an RV campground about a half kilometer up the road. It was totally automated (my understanding was that you drove in, picked a spot, swiped your credit card through a reader and got 12 hrs/24 hrs/48 hrs of electricity and such). As I say, it was not staffed, but through oral tradition, customers there knew that Nick was nearby and could offer help in case of emergency.
He told me that once there was a middle-aged RV couple with a tiny yappy dog and he first met them in the midst of a crisis: of an evening they were sitting out by the barbecue with the little dog running around off leash when suddenly a hawk swooped out of the sky, seized poor little Muffin or whatever, and rapidly climbed away. As hawk and Muffin turned into a dot in the evening sky, the couple panicked and raced over to ask Nick's help in getting their dog back.
Nick offered his sympathies but told them there was little he could do; "it's not like I know where the hawk lives." They demanded that he call someone so he hauled out the satellite phone and called Parks Canada at a zilllion dollars a minute and explained the situation, stressing that the owners demanded someone come and help them.
After ninety minutes or a ranger arrived, listened carefully to their story, and turned out to be much less sympathetic than Nick had been. As Nick related the tale to me, the ranger told the couple, "Look, I'm tempted to fine you twice: once for having a dog off leash in a national park, and a second fine for feeding the wildlife."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [188 favorites]
Some years ago I mentioned my erstwhile colleague Nick in the context of the shocking craftiness of ravens. He was usually the only staff onsite at a small cluster of cabins deep in Banff National Park; the only other place to stop off the highway anywhere nearby was an RV campground about a half kilometer up the road. It was totally automated (my understanding was that you drove in, picked a spot, swiped your credit card through a reader and got 12 hrs/24 hrs/48 hrs of electricity and such). As I say, it was not staffed, but through oral tradition, customers there knew that Nick was nearby and could offer help in case of emergency.
He told me that once there was a middle-aged RV couple with a tiny yappy dog and he first met them in the midst of a crisis: of an evening they were sitting out by the barbecue with the little dog running around off leash when suddenly a hawk swooped out of the sky, seized poor little Muffin or whatever, and rapidly climbed away. As hawk and Muffin turned into a dot in the evening sky, the couple panicked and raced over to ask Nick's help in getting their dog back.
Nick offered his sympathies but told them there was little he could do; "it's not like I know where the hawk lives." They demanded that he call someone so he hauled out the satellite phone and called Parks Canada at a zilllion dollars a minute and explained the situation, stressing that the owners demanded someone come and help them.
After ninety minutes or a ranger arrived, listened carefully to their story, and turned out to be much less sympathetic than Nick had been. As Nick related the tale to me, the ranger told the couple, "Look, I'm tempted to fine you twice: once for having a dog off leash in a national park, and a second fine for feeding the wildlife."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [188 favorites]
Circa 1959, the standard procedure for setting up camp when hiking in the back country, as I am told with probably some degree of exaggeration and feel inclined to pass on, involved such activities as: Chop down some trees for tent poles, chop down some more trees to make benches to sit on and maybe a work table, dig a latrine, scrape away some vegetation to build a big fire pit, dig another big hole to bury your garbage, and gather up big armfuls of delicate moss to use for pillows. There was plenty of wilderness to go around, nobody thought of the possibility we'd eventually use up all of it.
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
posted by sfenders at 5:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
posted by sfenders at 5:50 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
> "What am I in this metaphor?"
Crack pipe.
posted by kyrademon at 5:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Crack pipe.
posted by kyrademon at 5:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
from the bozo in the white house to people who let their dogs run off leash where it's not allowed, nothing makes me angrier than people who think the rules don't apply to them
posted by entropicamericana at 6:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 6:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
He told me that once there was a middle-aged RV couple with a tiny yappy dog and he first met them in the midst of a crisis: of an evening they were sitting out by the barbecue with the little dog running around off leash when suddenly a hawk swooped out of the sky, seized poor little Muffin or whatever, and rapidly climbed away. As hawk and Muffin turned into a dot in the evening sky, the couple panicked and raced over to ask Nick's help in getting their dog back.
We have a red-tailed hawk in my neighborhood and I assume she is why I never see stray cats.
Keeping your animals under control isn't just about protecting other things from them - it keeps them safe, too.
posted by winna at 6:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [15 favorites]
I'm sorry my dog ruined your concept of quiet nature but, you see, he's been at my side for 65,000 years....so, you know.
Sure once you can prove that you have actually had that dog at your side for 65000 years then yeah you get a pass.
I was walking with some dog owners in the lake district and one just chuckled recounting a story about when his dog had killed a farmers lamb. I asked if he paid the farmer for the loss of the lamb and the thought hadn't even crossed his mind. Each lamb sold at market would be £50-80 per lamb so that lambs death cost the farmer quite a bit.
My favourite reply to "He's friendly" is always
"I'm not"
posted by koolkat at 6:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [43 favorites]
I'm glad I have a potato-shaped french bulldog who is, while a delight, the last living creature I want slowing me down on a hiking trail. He is surely happier not being dragged along as well as there would be a decided lack of blankets and squeaky toys.
posted by Windigo at 6:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by Windigo at 6:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
I have such mixed feelings about this, because I know people who I'm pretty sure say their dogs are service dogs when they're not registered.
I get honestly pretty angry every time I read an article that talks about 'fake service dogs' without acknowledging the fact that the 'trained service dog' ideal that everyone is thinking of when they think of 'real service dogs' costs between 30K-40K and is not paid for by insurance, even if it is for a diagnosed medical condition.
The ADA position on service dogs is that they must be dogs who are trained to perform two tasks for someone with a diagnosed disability. This is really easy to do yourself and many people with severe disabilities do, because as you note, they can't afford to buy the service dog they actually need.
There is no need, under the ADA, to 'register' service dogs, and in fact, there is no legitimate service dog 'registry' to register them under even if you wanted to.
posted by corb at 6:09 AM on September 18, 2017 [29 favorites]
I get honestly pretty angry every time I read an article that talks about 'fake service dogs' without acknowledging the fact that the 'trained service dog' ideal that everyone is thinking of when they think of 'real service dogs' costs between 30K-40K and is not paid for by insurance, even if it is for a diagnosed medical condition.
The ADA position on service dogs is that they must be dogs who are trained to perform two tasks for someone with a diagnosed disability. This is really easy to do yourself and many people with severe disabilities do, because as you note, they can't afford to buy the service dog they actually need.
There is no need, under the ADA, to 'register' service dogs, and in fact, there is no legitimate service dog 'registry' to register them under even if you wanted to.
posted by corb at 6:09 AM on September 18, 2017 [29 favorites]
There's a local cemetery where I see people walking their dogs. It boggles my mind that they're not kicked out.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:29 AM on September 18, 2017
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:29 AM on September 18, 2017
It is, ironically, the level of services and privileges assigned to humans in wilderness areas that make the dog situation worse. For example you are not allowed to kill the bears. But if a bear attacks you (a very unlikely event), no one will blame you for shooting it, even if you were behaving unsafely. In fact rangers will try to find it and kill it. The same goes if a bear attacks your child. But if people are going around with dogs and an animal attacks the dog (more likely than attacking a human) people aren't usually willing to just let it have the dog. They feel justified in defending their pet. So conflicts increase.
The helicopter evacuation too--it's expensive and dangerous to undertake wilderness rescue for people, but we aren't allowed to refuse to help even dumbasses who hike the Grand Canyon without water. Or if you took, say, your medically fragile adolescent out but they're too large for you to carry back, we don't just say "well sucks to have your parents, kid."
And these services seem to go in hand with having the right to access the parks. Folks with actual service dogs have a right to be in national parks; parks work on programs to see how wheelchair users can be accommodated; and it's been understood that any of us ought to be rescued if something happens to us, because we have "a right to be there". But the idea that a dog has a right to be anywhere is going to rub up against some major conflicts.
posted by Hypatia at 6:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
The helicopter evacuation too--it's expensive and dangerous to undertake wilderness rescue for people, but we aren't allowed to refuse to help even dumbasses who hike the Grand Canyon without water. Or if you took, say, your medically fragile adolescent out but they're too large for you to carry back, we don't just say "well sucks to have your parents, kid."
And these services seem to go in hand with having the right to access the parks. Folks with actual service dogs have a right to be in national parks; parks work on programs to see how wheelchair users can be accommodated; and it's been understood that any of us ought to be rescued if something happens to us, because we have "a right to be there". But the idea that a dog has a right to be anywhere is going to rub up against some major conflicts.
posted by Hypatia at 6:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
People have also been marking up nature and changing it to suit our needs for that long, but the national parks are specifically meant to be an exception.
As was noted in shapes that haunt the dusk's excellent comment above, in the US at least we have a strange concept of "wilderness" and "nature" via the park system. Around here, pretty much all of the public land (ie, national forests, BLM, etc) was managed fairly intensively with controlled burns by tribes for tens of thousands of years. In the last 150-200 years, the tribes were moved to reservations and the settlers began many decades of fire suppression, massive industrial logging, mining, and high impact grazing by huge herds of livestock (primarily cattle and sheep) to feed the east coast market.
Then, much more recently, those lands were made part of the public system, including with designated wilderness sections. But logging is still allowed (though much less than at its peak in the early 1980s), there are still many grazing allotments, firewood cutting is allowed, and the forests are actively managed with fire suppression (though policies continue to shift on what fires are allowed to burn and which are suppressed). Not to mention hunting, commercial mushroom picking, and other extractive uses, and tribal groups asserting treaty rights. My point is, these are not pristine places and there's a point at which an impact is just a new impact, but not necessarily so much worse than the previous impacts.
Personally, the impacts I see from horses and mules (which are allowed on most trails I hike on) are far, far greater than the impacts from dogs. It's not going to change (horses are a traditional and long-standing use, and are a cornerstone of commercial guiding operations), but there's no getting around the extent to which they tear up the trails and crap voluminously. And, just given the size issues, as a hiker you have no choice but to get off the trail to allow the horses room to pass.
On local, short day hike trails I meet a lot of poorly trained, rambunctious dogs that even I, as a dog lover, wish I didn't have to meet. But on more remote trails, further from the trailhead, the dogs I meet are pretty much exclusively good hiking companions (maybe simply because they are tired from the miles of hiking, just like the people are).
posted by Dip Flash at 6:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
As was noted in shapes that haunt the dusk's excellent comment above, in the US at least we have a strange concept of "wilderness" and "nature" via the park system. Around here, pretty much all of the public land (ie, national forests, BLM, etc) was managed fairly intensively with controlled burns by tribes for tens of thousands of years. In the last 150-200 years, the tribes were moved to reservations and the settlers began many decades of fire suppression, massive industrial logging, mining, and high impact grazing by huge herds of livestock (primarily cattle and sheep) to feed the east coast market.
Then, much more recently, those lands were made part of the public system, including with designated wilderness sections. But logging is still allowed (though much less than at its peak in the early 1980s), there are still many grazing allotments, firewood cutting is allowed, and the forests are actively managed with fire suppression (though policies continue to shift on what fires are allowed to burn and which are suppressed). Not to mention hunting, commercial mushroom picking, and other extractive uses, and tribal groups asserting treaty rights. My point is, these are not pristine places and there's a point at which an impact is just a new impact, but not necessarily so much worse than the previous impacts.
Personally, the impacts I see from horses and mules (which are allowed on most trails I hike on) are far, far greater than the impacts from dogs. It's not going to change (horses are a traditional and long-standing use, and are a cornerstone of commercial guiding operations), but there's no getting around the extent to which they tear up the trails and crap voluminously. And, just given the size issues, as a hiker you have no choice but to get off the trail to allow the horses room to pass.
On local, short day hike trails I meet a lot of poorly trained, rambunctious dogs that even I, as a dog lover, wish I didn't have to meet. But on more remote trails, further from the trailhead, the dogs I meet are pretty much exclusively good hiking companions (maybe simply because they are tired from the miles of hiking, just like the people are).
posted by Dip Flash at 6:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
There's an Australian film called "Tracks" (the Australian "Wild"!) in which a woman treks over a thousand miles across Australia with some camels and her lovely awesome dog.
***SPOILERS****
The dog dies after eating some poison bait (I think? or contaminated water?) and I hated that woman so much when that happened. A dog on a leash is a safe dog, unless there are other dogs off leash. I saw lots of great, well-behaved dogs during a day-long hike on the AT, but they all should have been on leash.
posted by allthinky at 6:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
***SPOILERS****
The dog dies after eating some poison bait (I think? or contaminated water?) and I hated that woman so much when that happened. A dog on a leash is a safe dog, unless there are other dogs off leash. I saw lots of great, well-behaved dogs during a day-long hike on the AT, but they all should have been on leash.
posted by allthinky at 6:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
A month ago we climbed Mount Monadnock in Jaffrey, NH. The trailhead sign shouts NO PETS but we saw one dog on the climb, and as we finished we saw another dad+kids starting out with a damn Bernese.
I slipped a few times on the steeper, smoother rock faces, and I used my hands fairly often. No way was that fat, cigar-chomping guy nor his two small children going to be lifting that giant dog up the trickier slopes.
And when/if something bad happened to the dog, who would come to rescue it and pack out the thing? It's not fair to the dog or to the local veterinarians and/or SAR team.
(I couldn't help reflecting that this was a perfect exemplar of the libertarian beliefs of Jaffrey's most-famous resident, P. J. O'Rourke.)
posted by wenestvedt at 6:48 AM on September 18, 2017 [6 favorites]
I slipped a few times on the steeper, smoother rock faces, and I used my hands fairly often. No way was that fat, cigar-chomping guy nor his two small children going to be lifting that giant dog up the trickier slopes.
And when/if something bad happened to the dog, who would come to rescue it and pack out the thing? It's not fair to the dog or to the local veterinarians and/or SAR team.
(I couldn't help reflecting that this was a perfect exemplar of the libertarian beliefs of Jaffrey's most-famous resident, P. J. O'Rourke.)
posted by wenestvedt at 6:48 AM on September 18, 2017 [6 favorites]
I'm a dog person. I've been privileged to be companion to two magnificent mutts, long since passed away. For years, I didn't get a dog because I didn't have the time to devote to them. But now I have all the time in the world, and I'm kind of isolated, and a dog would be wonderful.
But then I flash back to all the conflict that I got into with other dog owners back in the day. All the times we were attacked, by dogs off leashes or escaped from yards. All the times peoples' dogs came running up to my frightened leashed rescue pup, making her freak right out and go aggressive.
I'm not always in physical shape to handle these sort of confrontations these days, so I've given up the idea of heading down to animal rescue and finding a friend. I could handle all the responsibilities involved in having a dog, but dealing with other dog-owners is the dealbreaker.
posted by MrVisible at 6:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
But then I flash back to all the conflict that I got into with other dog owners back in the day. All the times we were attacked, by dogs off leashes or escaped from yards. All the times peoples' dogs came running up to my frightened leashed rescue pup, making her freak right out and go aggressive.
I'm not always in physical shape to handle these sort of confrontations these days, so I've given up the idea of heading down to animal rescue and finding a friend. I could handle all the responsibilities involved in having a dog, but dealing with other dog-owners is the dealbreaker.
posted by MrVisible at 6:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
I can't understand this binary people are putting forth between the US ideal of 'untouched' wilderness (which is a fantasy, yes) and just doing whatever feels right in natural areas simply because people did the same in the past.
For sure every inch of the US has been shaped by human interaction for thousands of years, for sure every trail we walk on represents a significant shift in the natural environment, for sure there is no way for humans to isolate our lives and waste from natural areas, we bleed into everything. All this is true. It's always been true.
It's also true that we, as modern people, have incredible tools to understand the ways in which we effect the world around us. People who dedicate their lives to the study of what 'natural' looks like now and how our actions affect it make rules to try and limit the extent of that, because we can, and we've learned from generations that "We've always done this" is the worst environmental policy you can have. It's not perfect but at least it's hopefully better.
I'm trying to be polite, but "we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world. Sure we've already damaged it more than we can know, that's all the more reason to try and damage it less, not a reason to go whole hog.
posted by neonrev at 7:02 AM on September 18, 2017 [36 favorites]
For sure every inch of the US has been shaped by human interaction for thousands of years, for sure every trail we walk on represents a significant shift in the natural environment, for sure there is no way for humans to isolate our lives and waste from natural areas, we bleed into everything. All this is true. It's always been true.
It's also true that we, as modern people, have incredible tools to understand the ways in which we effect the world around us. People who dedicate their lives to the study of what 'natural' looks like now and how our actions affect it make rules to try and limit the extent of that, because we can, and we've learned from generations that "We've always done this" is the worst environmental policy you can have. It's not perfect but at least it's hopefully better.
I'm trying to be polite, but "we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world. Sure we've already damaged it more than we can know, that's all the more reason to try and damage it less, not a reason to go whole hog.
posted by neonrev at 7:02 AM on September 18, 2017 [36 favorites]
There's a trail I go running on that was having a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists were breaking the rules and the hikers, joggers, and dog walkers were getting frustrated. The mountain bike club did the heavy lifting to defuse the problem by putting up signage and having volunteer trail monitors out of heavy usage days. That kind of engagement from within works a lot better than one group shouting at the other.
So I think one important aspect of being a responsible dog owner is to take on the burden to inform the irresponsible dog owners that they are breaking the rules. If I tell them they are out of line or that their dog is misbehaving then I'm just an asshole who hates dogs and they're going to dismiss me, justify their choices, and continue that behavior.
Non-dog people are going to judge every dog by the worst ones they meet. It's not fair but it's human nature. You can see that in this thread here. So if you are a good dog owner, put some work in on the bad actors because you're being lumped in with them.
> There's a local cemetery where I see people walking their dogs. It boggles my mind that they're not kicked out.
DC's Congressional Cemetery has a dog "club", dog walkers pay dues and that money goes towards upkeep of the grounds. The cemetery was badly rundown and neglected not too long ago, the dog walkers were part of the revitalization. Again, what makes it work is that dog owners who have invested in the park create a self-policing community to enforce the social contract.
posted by peeedro at 7:04 AM on September 18, 2017 [22 favorites]
So I think one important aspect of being a responsible dog owner is to take on the burden to inform the irresponsible dog owners that they are breaking the rules. If I tell them they are out of line or that their dog is misbehaving then I'm just an asshole who hates dogs and they're going to dismiss me, justify their choices, and continue that behavior.
Non-dog people are going to judge every dog by the worst ones they meet. It's not fair but it's human nature. You can see that in this thread here. So if you are a good dog owner, put some work in on the bad actors because you're being lumped in with them.
> There's a local cemetery where I see people walking their dogs. It boggles my mind that they're not kicked out.
DC's Congressional Cemetery has a dog "club", dog walkers pay dues and that money goes towards upkeep of the grounds. The cemetery was badly rundown and neglected not too long ago, the dog walkers were part of the revitalization. Again, what makes it work is that dog owners who have invested in the park create a self-policing community to enforce the social contract.
posted by peeedro at 7:04 AM on September 18, 2017 [22 favorites]
I'm not a dog owner, but it seems like telling people they can't bring let their dogs off their leads when they're in national parks seems a bit much. Surely there's some level of compromise here.
I am a dog owner. I've also worked multiple seasons in Yellowstone National Park.
Let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that there indeed is damn good reason to not bring your dog(s) into most national park type situations, backcountry in particular, and Yellowstone Natl. Park in double particular.
Established backcountry camping on trails is just not setup for dogs. Wildlife and dogs don't mix well. I feel for folks that truly need service dogs and hope there is a compromise situation whereby they can enjoy the wild and also have access to their partner.
Yellowstone National Park is NOT a place to bring your dog, even on a leash it's fucking fraught with danger if they hop off the board walk or get away. Thermal springs are no joke and dogs don't have the knowledge to avoid them. NSFL link follows, I'd not read it if you have any sort of soft spot for dogs or their owners: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/hotspring.asp
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [31 favorites]
I am a dog owner. I've also worked multiple seasons in Yellowstone National Park.
Let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that there indeed is damn good reason to not bring your dog(s) into most national park type situations, backcountry in particular, and Yellowstone Natl. Park in double particular.
Established backcountry camping on trails is just not setup for dogs. Wildlife and dogs don't mix well. I feel for folks that truly need service dogs and hope there is a compromise situation whereby they can enjoy the wild and also have access to their partner.
Yellowstone National Park is NOT a place to bring your dog, even on a leash it's fucking fraught with danger if they hop off the board walk or get away. Thermal springs are no joke and dogs don't have the knowledge to avoid them. NSFL link follows, I'd not read it if you have any sort of soft spot for dogs or their owners: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/hotspring.asp
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [31 favorites]
I get honestly pretty angry every time I read an article that talks about 'fake service dogs' without acknowledging the fact that the 'trained service dog' ideal that everyone is thinking of when they think of 'real service dogs' costs between 30K-40K and is not paid for by insurance, even if it is for a diagnosed medical condition.
Untrained dogs claimed as service animals though can be a danger and a real difficulty for the businesses that have to deal with them and owners who aren't concerned over the well being of others. There have been attacks by "service dogs" at places I've worked as well as the more common violations of noise, health concerns, and personal space issues. Simply trusting people to be responsible for their animals, whether claimed as service ones or not, doesn't work and causes greater difficulties for actual service animals and the people that rely on them.
I'm certainly sympathetic to the money issue and people wanting to provide for their own care, being poor myself and having owned pets for many years, but that still doesn't make it okay to cause greater difficulties for others.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
Untrained dogs claimed as service animals though can be a danger and a real difficulty for the businesses that have to deal with them and owners who aren't concerned over the well being of others. There have been attacks by "service dogs" at places I've worked as well as the more common violations of noise, health concerns, and personal space issues. Simply trusting people to be responsible for their animals, whether claimed as service ones or not, doesn't work and causes greater difficulties for actual service animals and the people that rely on them.
I'm certainly sympathetic to the money issue and people wanting to provide for their own care, being poor myself and having owned pets for many years, but that still doesn't make it okay to cause greater difficulties for others.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
firechicago: Even if your dog is well behaved, it's good citizenship to keep them visibly controlled around strangers, because--
...because "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
I love dogs, too, but in the same way that I make sure my kids are respectful of other hikers, and of the park we're in, the dog's wish to run wild has ot be curbed. Sorry, Spot -- and Spot's owner -- but it does.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
...because "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
I love dogs, too, but in the same way that I make sure my kids are respectful of other hikers, and of the park we're in, the dog's wish to run wild has ot be curbed. Sorry, Spot -- and Spot's owner -- but it does.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
Once upon a time, I was stopped at a pulloff along Trail Ridge Road in the Rocky Mountain National Park. There was a guy there with a smal, maybe 25 pound dog on a leash. A bird flew past at about eye level, and the dog tried to chase it. It that dog had been off leash, it would have just leapt off the mountain. If it'd been much bigger or had caught the owner off guard, the guy could have gone too.
He wasn't doing anything wrong. His dog was leashed and under his control, and everything turned out fine, but if I'd been considering taking my dogs up there, that would have changed my mind. (I don't get to take my dogs many places because they both look like "pit bulls," and there are a lot of panicky ignoramuses out there who fantasize about killing them.)
But it's not just dogs, either. Park attendance is up overall, particularly in Colorado I think, and we get all kinds of jerkweeds tagging the trails with "inspirational" shit and treating nature like it's nothing more than an edgy photo opp for self absorbed twits to show off what unique and creative rulebreakers they can be. It's gotten to the point that I get a little nervous whenever I see pictures of Hanging Lake in particular, because I know it's just giving people ideas.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
He wasn't doing anything wrong. His dog was leashed and under his control, and everything turned out fine, but if I'd been considering taking my dogs up there, that would have changed my mind. (I don't get to take my dogs many places because they both look like "pit bulls," and there are a lot of panicky ignoramuses out there who fantasize about killing them.)
But it's not just dogs, either. Park attendance is up overall, particularly in Colorado I think, and we get all kinds of jerkweeds tagging the trails with "inspirational" shit and treating nature like it's nothing more than an edgy photo opp for self absorbed twits to show off what unique and creative rulebreakers they can be. It's gotten to the point that I get a little nervous whenever I see pictures of Hanging Lake in particular, because I know it's just giving people ideas.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
I only started hiking this year because it gives my dog, and by extension me, so much pleasure - without him, I probably wouldn't take time to enjoy nature the way I do. Of course I always obey trail and leash rules (because my dog is an asshole) and, on the relatively busy trails I use, I see others doing the same - or at least leashing up their dog when they see others approach. One tip: for stability and comfort, I can't recommend a (short) waist-mounted running leash like this enough. Makes a huge difference to be handsfree for your own stability and let the dog find his own route around/over obstacles while still having them securely leashed up and having a traffic handle available for when others need to pass.
Also, if I were buried in a cemetery, it would make me very happy if there were dogs and people and whoever else enjoying that space. I understand that others don't feel that way and they are free to choose spaces that reflect that, but I don't see how it's inherently disrespectful.
posted by mosst at 7:20 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
Also, if I were buried in a cemetery, it would make me very happy if there were dogs and people and whoever else enjoying that space. I understand that others don't feel that way and they are free to choose spaces that reflect that, but I don't see how it's inherently disrespectful.
posted by mosst at 7:20 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
Untrained dogs claimed as service animals though can be a danger and a real difficulty for the businesses that have to deal with them and owners who aren't concerned over the well being of others. There have been attacks by "service dogs" at places I've worked as well as the more common violations of noise, health concerns, and personal space issues.
The thing is, many accomodations of disability involve at the very least a difficulty for businesses - that's why the ADA forced them to accommodate the disabled instead of just giving guidelines. Businesses also don't like to provide ramps for wheelchairs, or wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, for example. Many schools don't like providing para-professionals or access for disabled kids, who also have noise and personal space issues. The health issues are also no greater than those posed by people with poor hygiene, but when people try to bar, say, the homeless, on health grounds, we rightly oppose them.
The issue isn't "untrained dogs claimed as service animals" - the dogs are trained to deal with the disabilities, which makes them, legally and correctly, a service animal. However, the bulk of the training for what you think of as service animals is not legally mandated - it's essentially "canine good citizenship training", but for one to two years of consistent work to enable dogs to function in every environment.
The danger, especially for dogs who haven't had those years of training and screening for temperament, is a real issue, and I think it would be reasonable to require working dogs to have (comfortable, long-wearing) muzzles when entering public establishments. But a dog barking is not more offensive than, say, children screaming, and we accept that people have the right to bring their children to most places.
posted by corb at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
The thing is, many accomodations of disability involve at the very least a difficulty for businesses - that's why the ADA forced them to accommodate the disabled instead of just giving guidelines. Businesses also don't like to provide ramps for wheelchairs, or wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, for example. Many schools don't like providing para-professionals or access for disabled kids, who also have noise and personal space issues. The health issues are also no greater than those posed by people with poor hygiene, but when people try to bar, say, the homeless, on health grounds, we rightly oppose them.
The issue isn't "untrained dogs claimed as service animals" - the dogs are trained to deal with the disabilities, which makes them, legally and correctly, a service animal. However, the bulk of the training for what you think of as service animals is not legally mandated - it's essentially "canine good citizenship training", but for one to two years of consistent work to enable dogs to function in every environment.
The danger, especially for dogs who haven't had those years of training and screening for temperament, is a real issue, and I think it would be reasonable to require working dogs to have (comfortable, long-wearing) muzzles when entering public establishments. But a dog barking is not more offensive than, say, children screaming, and we accept that people have the right to bring their children to most places.
posted by corb at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
Non-dog people are going to judge every dog by the worst ones they meet.
Well, perhaps not quite. But we want policy to be set to deal with both, and that does unfortunately mean that you can't assume that the dogs in question are going to be well-behaved and perfect like I'm sure your dog is. If some dogs off leashes is a problem, the policy has to be no dogs off leashes. You cannot have a meaningful policy that says "no dogs off leashes unless they totally won't be a problem" by like you can't have a speed limit of 50 unless it's dry and you're a good driver. We're not judging you all as terrible dog owners. But if you defy behavioural norms designed to keep bad dog owners in check, you both encourage them and give them cover - you become part of the overall problem, no matter how well-behaved your dog is. Being responsible means following the rules and respecting other people using the trails even when you think it wouldn't be a problem.
posted by Dysk at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
Well, perhaps not quite. But we want policy to be set to deal with both, and that does unfortunately mean that you can't assume that the dogs in question are going to be well-behaved and perfect like I'm sure your dog is. If some dogs off leashes is a problem, the policy has to be no dogs off leashes. You cannot have a meaningful policy that says "no dogs off leashes unless they totally won't be a problem" by like you can't have a speed limit of 50 unless it's dry and you're a good driver. We're not judging you all as terrible dog owners. But if you defy behavioural norms designed to keep bad dog owners in check, you both encourage them and give them cover - you become part of the overall problem, no matter how well-behaved your dog is. Being responsible means following the rules and respecting other people using the trails even when you think it wouldn't be a problem.
posted by Dysk at 7:25 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
I'm sorry my dog ruined your concept of quiet nature but, you see, he's been at my side for 65,000 years....so, you know.
Wow, you must have a really low Mefi account number!
posted by honey-barbara at 7:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
Wow, you must have a really low Mefi account number!
posted by honey-barbara at 7:35 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
When I took a big road trip, I brought my dog. State and National Parks, he came on trails with me, on leash, or stayed in the van. It was cool weather, he was fine. Some hikers don't have easy options for dog care. Sometimes it's too hot for a dog to stay in the vehicle. Dogs are companions, so for many dog-owners, it's more a case of hiking with a friend. Just as towns are adding dog parks, state and national parks are identifying trails that are okay with dogs, or not.
If your dog isn't under control on leash, train your dog. Your dog jumping on someone, crotch-sniffing, growling, any bad behavior, is not okay. Train and leash your dog. Anybody who leaves their dog's shit on the trail is an utter asshole. Tragedy of the commons, indeed.
That said, one December in Joshua Tree NP I spent the night in a parking lot because I literally could not find the road to the campground in the dark. The park was barely open, self check-in, no rangers to be found, and no other visitors that I could see. I was making coffee, the dog got loose with his leash attached and I paid little attention because he stays close, and let's face it, my priority was coffee. A group of rangers arrived to do trail work, and I fully expected a dressing-down or ticket. Nah, they wanted to throw the ball for the dog, and told me he was okay off leash while I made breakfast. I have had terrific interactions with rangers; if you're a jerk to a park ranger, GTFO.
posted by theora55 at 7:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
If your dog isn't under control on leash, train your dog. Your dog jumping on someone, crotch-sniffing, growling, any bad behavior, is not okay. Train and leash your dog. Anybody who leaves their dog's shit on the trail is an utter asshole. Tragedy of the commons, indeed.
That said, one December in Joshua Tree NP I spent the night in a parking lot because I literally could not find the road to the campground in the dark. The park was barely open, self check-in, no rangers to be found, and no other visitors that I could see. I was making coffee, the dog got loose with his leash attached and I paid little attention because he stays close, and let's face it, my priority was coffee. A group of rangers arrived to do trail work, and I fully expected a dressing-down or ticket. Nah, they wanted to throw the ball for the dog, and told me he was okay off leash while I made breakfast. I have had terrific interactions with rangers; if you're a jerk to a park ranger, GTFO.
posted by theora55 at 7:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
> I have such mixed feelings about this, because I know people who I'm pretty sure say their dogs are service dogs when they're not registered.
People brought their "service" dogs into the public library where I used to work all the time; our policy was that if the dog did not have a vest containing the certification paperwork to ask them to bring it next time, and if they didn't they could be asked to take the dog outside. Approximately 100% of the time, dogs without vests and paperwork were not service dogs, just somebody's pet that was more special than the other pets whose owners followed the rules.
I was also in a thrift store last week and there was a woman with a dog which was barking and jumping on people. It was clearly not a trained service dog, but when another patron got angry at the dog she loudly clutched her pearls and accused him of being prejudiced against disabled people and her adorable, very friendly, totally-a-legitimate-service dog.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:37 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
People brought their "service" dogs into the public library where I used to work all the time; our policy was that if the dog did not have a vest containing the certification paperwork to ask them to bring it next time, and if they didn't they could be asked to take the dog outside. Approximately 100% of the time, dogs without vests and paperwork were not service dogs, just somebody's pet that was more special than the other pets whose owners followed the rules.
I was also in a thrift store last week and there was a woman with a dog which was barking and jumping on people. It was clearly not a trained service dog, but when another patron got angry at the dog she loudly clutched her pearls and accused him of being prejudiced against disabled people and her adorable, very friendly, totally-a-legitimate-service dog.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:37 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
"we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world.
/thread, really.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:41 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
/thread, really.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:41 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
So we had a chronic problem in a shared space where one regular user had been attacked by a dog and was deeply, intractably afraid of them and another user had a large pit bull mix emotional support dog (so designated by the person, but honestly, I had no reason to doubt her - she told me the whole thing about the dog and the issues that the person had, and her lack of access to care). Unfortunately, the service dog was a very extroverted dog which would sometimes jump up on people (to lick their faces - she was a big sweetie, but also a big sweetie) and between that and looking a bit naturally menacing due to being a big old pit bull, it was very difficult for the other person.
And that's precisely the kind of issue that's raised by the self-designated service dog situation - like, I have no reason to doubt the actual need, but I also have no tools to require better trained dogs, and the person with the dog doesn't necessarily have the ability or desire to access training in any case. In my experience, people often feel that because their dogs are nice dogs, the jumping, etc should not be scary to others - and because I'm not scared of dogs, I can readily accept that a big pit bull mix is just being extroverted because she loves-loves-loves humans and wants to greet them all with kisses, etc, but not everyone is in that situation.
So it's tough. I don't think people are being frivolous when they designate their dogs as emotional support animals or service dogs (at least not in my experience) but it does raise some genuine issues because many spaces are not designed to accommodate extroverted dogs, and many people go into those spaces expecting that they will not have to interact with dogs, especially not extroverted ones.
posted by Frowner at 7:52 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
And that's precisely the kind of issue that's raised by the self-designated service dog situation - like, I have no reason to doubt the actual need, but I also have no tools to require better trained dogs, and the person with the dog doesn't necessarily have the ability or desire to access training in any case. In my experience, people often feel that because their dogs are nice dogs, the jumping, etc should not be scary to others - and because I'm not scared of dogs, I can readily accept that a big pit bull mix is just being extroverted because she loves-loves-loves humans and wants to greet them all with kisses, etc, but not everyone is in that situation.
So it's tough. I don't think people are being frivolous when they designate their dogs as emotional support animals or service dogs (at least not in my experience) but it does raise some genuine issues because many spaces are not designed to accommodate extroverted dogs, and many people go into those spaces expecting that they will not have to interact with dogs, especially not extroverted ones.
posted by Frowner at 7:52 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
Dogs being falsely claimed as service animals is indeed a thing. A friend of mine asked on Facebook if he could take his dog to the big arts festival we had downtown this weekend, a couple of people said they weren't allowed, and he indicated he was ok with that. But then someone else chimed in with the advice to go online and for $50 you can get your dog certified as a service animal and take it wherever you want. I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is any more than I have a solution for people who abuse handicapped parking placards.
posted by TedW at 7:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by TedW at 7:56 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
At Old Faithful this summer I saw a ranger with the unenviable job of kicking dogs off the boardwalk around the geyser right before the eruption. People were not happy. The stated reason was that the boardwalk gets extremely hot and can burn dogs feet when owners are paying attention to the geyser instead of their dogs. They said they'd recorded the boardwalk board temperature over 120 or 140 degrees or something. However, it wasn't a hot evening and there were people barefoot on the boards. My guess is that another big reason to keep dogs off the boardwalk is that many owners will be too distract to clean up messes after their dogs.
Dogs being falsely claimed as service animals is indeed a thing.
Oh man...at the Old Faithful visitor center on the same trip this summer I was walking in behind a women, her three kids, and a small dog in her arms. One of the kids noticed that the door said "no dogs" and told their mom and (if I remember right) offered to wait outside with the dog. The woman said, no, it's ok, and pointed to the fake-looking service dog vest. The kids looked kind of embarrassed and defeated and my wife and I felt bad for them.
I was also in a thrift store last week and there was a woman with a dog which was barking and jumping on people.
Saw something similar at a thrift store in Connecticut a month or so ago, except it was the person accosting people. The dog had a vest that something like "Healing emotional dog" (not like that, but not "service dog" and more along the lines of hugs and smiles and brightening other people's day). The woman with the dog was approaching people and imploring them to pet the dog and trying to give out a card that had the dog's facebook account. I witnessed one woman backing away and saying she didn't use facebook while the woman with the dog was moving toward her and saying "You don't want to look at photos and keep up with [the dog] on facebook?" I left that area of the store very quickly.
posted by msbrauer at 8:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
Dogs being falsely claimed as service animals is indeed a thing.
Oh man...at the Old Faithful visitor center on the same trip this summer I was walking in behind a women, her three kids, and a small dog in her arms. One of the kids noticed that the door said "no dogs" and told their mom and (if I remember right) offered to wait outside with the dog. The woman said, no, it's ok, and pointed to the fake-looking service dog vest. The kids looked kind of embarrassed and defeated and my wife and I felt bad for them.
I was also in a thrift store last week and there was a woman with a dog which was barking and jumping on people.
Saw something similar at a thrift store in Connecticut a month or so ago, except it was the person accosting people. The dog had a vest that something like "Healing emotional dog" (not like that, but not "service dog" and more along the lines of hugs and smiles and brightening other people's day). The woman with the dog was approaching people and imploring them to pet the dog and trying to give out a card that had the dog's facebook account. I witnessed one woman backing away and saying she didn't use facebook while the woman with the dog was moving toward her and saying "You don't want to look at photos and keep up with [the dog] on facebook?" I left that area of the store very quickly.
posted by msbrauer at 8:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
Well, this turns out to be an interestingly intense thread. Seems like when a nerve is touched it's hard for folks to fully read other's comments.. My personal takeaway from the piece is I should always follow leash and feces rules scrupulously. (I wouldn't take my dog in a park he's not allowed in.) It's hard for me to personally get het up about this as the problem of our age, considering the much worse other environmental assaults (like logging) on our public lands.
My personal hobby horse is around this service dog thing. In the SF Bay Area where I live we may be the capital of poorly behaved emotional support animals. There was a pup in the restaurant I was in last night, sitting on the owners lap, skittering around under the table. My modest proposal:
- Emotional support animals should have to pass a Canine Good Citizen test
- Dog training should be widely offered at low cost or free by city recreation departments
- People with a need for emotional support animals should have easy access to trained dogs.
As my brilliant plan requires a re-funding of our community rec programs and a new, robust funding of services for people with disabilities, it may take a while. ):
posted by latkes at 8:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
My personal hobby horse is around this service dog thing. In the SF Bay Area where I live we may be the capital of poorly behaved emotional support animals. There was a pup in the restaurant I was in last night, sitting on the owners lap, skittering around under the table. My modest proposal:
- Emotional support animals should have to pass a Canine Good Citizen test
- Dog training should be widely offered at low cost or free by city recreation departments
- People with a need for emotional support animals should have easy access to trained dogs.
As my brilliant plan requires a re-funding of our community rec programs and a new, robust funding of services for people with disabilities, it may take a while. ):
posted by latkes at 8:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
I see this as being just a symptom of a much larger problem of people simply not getting that nature and wilderness are potentially dangerous.
When I was in Yosemite last year, I cannot tell you how many times I ran into people blatantly ignoring posted signs warning against encounters with wildlife, climbing on slippery rocks, etc. At the trailhead for Bridalveil Falls they had a huge sign up warning people to stay at the base of the falls and to NOT climb the rocks, and this sign was illustrated with a collection of x-rays from people who'd had serious fractures from slipping and falling on the rocks. And yet, when I got to the base of the falls, sure enough there were people clambering all over the rocks, and one small group of three friends had scaled the side of the cliff about 3-4 stories' height up. They came back down when I was sitting there, and they wore nothing more than t-shirts and shorts, and the woman even had sandals on. It is a miracle no one slipped.
And on another hike I saw a group of five guys surrounding a mule deer that had wandered into a meadow just trying to get lunch; the guys were in a circle around it, trying to corner it against a log, and the deer was getting more and more freaked out. I loudly asked them just what the fuck they thought they were doing. "We're not going to hurt it," one of them protested. I pointed out that the deer was a wild animal and they had no way of knowing if it would hurt them. I'm pretty sure they all thought I was over-reacting, but I distracted them long enough for the deer to make a getaway so I let it go. (Better those guys go home with a story about a cranky hiker than a story about a deer kicking them in the stomach or something.)
But these are both cases where people just don't get it that the wilderness has its own rules. Wildlife isn't like it is in Disney, it could either eat you or try to fuck you up if you keep it from eating. Climbing on wet rocks isn't like the rock-climbing wall at the gym - there aren't mats to cushion you. Mother bears will not take kindly to you trying to pet their cubs. Your dog's shit has a different bacterial profile than the shit that's evolved to be in this woods and it could contaminate things. Blasting "Country Grammar" in your campsite at midnight not only keeps other campers awake, it keeps the surrounding muskrats from hearing each others' mating calls or whatever.
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on September 18, 2017 [51 favorites]
When I was in Yosemite last year, I cannot tell you how many times I ran into people blatantly ignoring posted signs warning against encounters with wildlife, climbing on slippery rocks, etc. At the trailhead for Bridalveil Falls they had a huge sign up warning people to stay at the base of the falls and to NOT climb the rocks, and this sign was illustrated with a collection of x-rays from people who'd had serious fractures from slipping and falling on the rocks. And yet, when I got to the base of the falls, sure enough there were people clambering all over the rocks, and one small group of three friends had scaled the side of the cliff about 3-4 stories' height up. They came back down when I was sitting there, and they wore nothing more than t-shirts and shorts, and the woman even had sandals on. It is a miracle no one slipped.
And on another hike I saw a group of five guys surrounding a mule deer that had wandered into a meadow just trying to get lunch; the guys were in a circle around it, trying to corner it against a log, and the deer was getting more and more freaked out. I loudly asked them just what the fuck they thought they were doing. "We're not going to hurt it," one of them protested. I pointed out that the deer was a wild animal and they had no way of knowing if it would hurt them. I'm pretty sure they all thought I was over-reacting, but I distracted them long enough for the deer to make a getaway so I let it go. (Better those guys go home with a story about a cranky hiker than a story about a deer kicking them in the stomach or something.)
But these are both cases where people just don't get it that the wilderness has its own rules. Wildlife isn't like it is in Disney, it could either eat you or try to fuck you up if you keep it from eating. Climbing on wet rocks isn't like the rock-climbing wall at the gym - there aren't mats to cushion you. Mother bears will not take kindly to you trying to pet their cubs. Your dog's shit has a different bacterial profile than the shit that's evolved to be in this woods and it could contaminate things. Blasting "Country Grammar" in your campsite at midnight not only keeps other campers awake, it keeps the surrounding muskrats from hearing each others' mating calls or whatever.
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on September 18, 2017 [51 favorites]
The thing is, many accomodations of disability involve at the very least a difficulty for businesses - that's why the ADA forced them to accommodate the disabled instead of just giving guidelines. Businesses also don't like to provide ramps for wheelchairs, or wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, for example. Many schools don't like providing para-professionals or access for disabled kids, who also have noise and personal space issues. The health issues are also no greater than those posed by people with poor hygiene, but when people try to bar, say, the homeless, on health grounds, we rightly oppose them.
I don't follow this line of thought at all. I mean, yes, businesses don't necessarily want to add cost and many wouldn't provide the same set of services for the disabled were they not required to under law, but the law is kinda the point. I mean you can say that animals aren't causing greater health risk than some humans, but the health department has rules businesses have to follow in providing food service, and that standard is what is threatened by untrained animals. The same for other accommodations. Businesses are required to allow service animals in places other animals may not be allowed, that isn't a bad thing, that's the point and part of what is harmed by people making false claims and not having properly trained animals.
If the law needs to be extended to further help people with special needs, then it should be, but people taking it upon themselves to violate the law and the requirements of the businesses working under it can not be considered to be acting in the best faith of the society. They are acting out on their own interests. There are, no doubt, some people out there with animals as well trained as those recognized as service providers, but most are not but will be claimed so anyway as people think their cases are special. A pet that provides comfort to someone is a wonderful thing, but it is a different thing than a service animal.
There are places one can go that allow pets and other places that will make special accommodations in some circumstances, trying to bring in an untrained pet to an area designated for service animals only is unnecessary, wrong, and sometimes against the law. There may be some added difficulty for people with pets they wish to take with them everywhere, but that is an unfortunate necessity since we simply cannot trust people to control their animals without some proof of training or ability.
With that, I've said enough on the subject as I don't want to belabor my point or overstay my welcome in the thread any more than I already have.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
I don't follow this line of thought at all. I mean, yes, businesses don't necessarily want to add cost and many wouldn't provide the same set of services for the disabled were they not required to under law, but the law is kinda the point. I mean you can say that animals aren't causing greater health risk than some humans, but the health department has rules businesses have to follow in providing food service, and that standard is what is threatened by untrained animals. The same for other accommodations. Businesses are required to allow service animals in places other animals may not be allowed, that isn't a bad thing, that's the point and part of what is harmed by people making false claims and not having properly trained animals.
If the law needs to be extended to further help people with special needs, then it should be, but people taking it upon themselves to violate the law and the requirements of the businesses working under it can not be considered to be acting in the best faith of the society. They are acting out on their own interests. There are, no doubt, some people out there with animals as well trained as those recognized as service providers, but most are not but will be claimed so anyway as people think their cases are special. A pet that provides comfort to someone is a wonderful thing, but it is a different thing than a service animal.
There are places one can go that allow pets and other places that will make special accommodations in some circumstances, trying to bring in an untrained pet to an area designated for service animals only is unnecessary, wrong, and sometimes against the law. There may be some added difficulty for people with pets they wish to take with them everywhere, but that is an unfortunate necessity since we simply cannot trust people to control their animals without some proof of training or ability.
With that, I've said enough on the subject as I don't want to belabor my point or overstay my welcome in the thread any more than I already have.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:10 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Almost everyone agrees that animals that have undergone extensive training to perform critical functions for disabled people should be allowed to accompany their owners in order to perform those functions. And almost everyone agrees that animals without that training should be restricted from certain places where it might be unsafe or just plain aggravating for others to have them there.
But the problem is that those aren't the only two groups of pets. Any policy on service animals has to deal with the fact that there exist:
- Animals who are trained to perform a critical function, but don't have any formal certification as such, either because their owner couldn't afford formal training, or the functions they perform are not so difficult or extensive as to require expensive training.
- Animals who perform functions that are more nebulous, or might not be recognized as critical by everybody (e.g. emotional support animals).
- Animals who are trained to perform a critical function, but aren't trained to behave well (or even safely) in all of the circumstances that accompanying their owner brings them to.
- Animals who aren't trained at all, but are owned by people who think rules apply to other people, and see the words "service animal" as a magical incantation to let them bring their precious pet anywhere they damn well please.
I don't think that there's any policy that will exclude all of the animals that should be excluded and allow all of the animals that should be allowed (if we could even agree about which animals should be excluded or allowed in every possible circumstance).
posted by firechicago at 8:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
But the problem is that those aren't the only two groups of pets. Any policy on service animals has to deal with the fact that there exist:
- Animals who are trained to perform a critical function, but don't have any formal certification as such, either because their owner couldn't afford formal training, or the functions they perform are not so difficult or extensive as to require expensive training.
- Animals who perform functions that are more nebulous, or might not be recognized as critical by everybody (e.g. emotional support animals).
- Animals who are trained to perform a critical function, but aren't trained to behave well (or even safely) in all of the circumstances that accompanying their owner brings them to.
- Animals who aren't trained at all, but are owned by people who think rules apply to other people, and see the words "service animal" as a magical incantation to let them bring their precious pet anywhere they damn well please.
I don't think that there's any policy that will exclude all of the animals that should be excluded and allow all of the animals that should be allowed (if we could even agree about which animals should be excluded or allowed in every possible circumstance).
posted by firechicago at 8:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
sfenders: Circa 1959, the standard procedure for setting up camp when hiking in the back country, as I am told with probably some degree of exaggeration and feel inclined to pass on, involved such activities as: Chop down some trees for tent poles, chop down some more trees to make benches to sit on and maybe a work table, dig a latrine, scrape away some vegetation to build a big fire pit, dig another big hole to bury your garbage, and gather up big armfuls of delicate moss to use for pillows. There was plenty of wilderness to go around, nobody thought of the possibility we'd eventually use up all of it.
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
This aspect has been ridiculed a bit above, but I think it is relevant. I'm a dog owner, and my dog is never off-leash where it isn't allowed, but when I was a kid things were very different. I would ride on my pony all through the national park next to our farm and bring my police-dog trained shepherd with me off leash. I could easily be out there for 6 hours and not meet one person. The wild-life was abundant because there was no hunting and not scared of my dog because he was never off command. The local rangers knew me and only once called my grandparents when I'd knocked over a fence while attempting to jump it, even though the rules back then were basically the same as today. They asked me to help when a young scout got lost. I miss that time, and I'm certain many others feel the same. I get that.
So many things are different today: first of all, the number of visitors to the park has multiplied, and far more of those visitors have no idea what they are doing. The park management has been centralized so they don't know any local people and wouldn't be able to know a local kid from a tourist on a rented pony, let alone know wether my dog was a fully trained dog or some city pet. And some people are out there with dogs who chase up wildlife or jump at people. I get why the rules are different today, they must be, but there is also an absurdity to it all that is hard to deal with. With all the management needed today, some "nature" has become culture in disguise.
It's a dilemma, mostly caused by the scale of tourism and the behaviour of humans and I think it needs to be addressed intelligently. For the tourist with the dog off leash, the park looks huge and empty. For me, or the park ranger, some trails seem as busy as a mall on a Saturday, compared to what we knew before and what we imagine would be a good level of traffic. One dog pooping once a week is surely not a problem, but dozens of dogs pooping every day may be too many in a vulnerable environment, depending on how it effects animal tracks and waterways.
And yeah, lots of people have no idea how dangerous it is out there.
posted by mumimor at 8:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
This aspect has been ridiculed a bit above, but I think it is relevant. I'm a dog owner, and my dog is never off-leash where it isn't allowed, but when I was a kid things were very different. I would ride on my pony all through the national park next to our farm and bring my police-dog trained shepherd with me off leash. I could easily be out there for 6 hours and not meet one person. The wild-life was abundant because there was no hunting and not scared of my dog because he was never off command. The local rangers knew me and only once called my grandparents when I'd knocked over a fence while attempting to jump it, even though the rules back then were basically the same as today. They asked me to help when a young scout got lost. I miss that time, and I'm certain many others feel the same. I get that.
So many things are different today: first of all, the number of visitors to the park has multiplied, and far more of those visitors have no idea what they are doing. The park management has been centralized so they don't know any local people and wouldn't be able to know a local kid from a tourist on a rented pony, let alone know wether my dog was a fully trained dog or some city pet. And some people are out there with dogs who chase up wildlife or jump at people. I get why the rules are different today, they must be, but there is also an absurdity to it all that is hard to deal with. With all the management needed today, some "nature" has become culture in disguise.
It's a dilemma, mostly caused by the scale of tourism and the behaviour of humans and I think it needs to be addressed intelligently. For the tourist with the dog off leash, the park looks huge and empty. For me, or the park ranger, some trails seem as busy as a mall on a Saturday, compared to what we knew before and what we imagine would be a good level of traffic. One dog pooping once a week is surely not a problem, but dozens of dogs pooping every day may be too many in a vulnerable environment, depending on how it effects animal tracks and waterways.
And yeah, lots of people have no idea how dangerous it is out there.
posted by mumimor at 8:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
The woman with the dog was approaching people and imploring them to pet the dog and trying to give out a card that had the dog's facebook account. I witnessed one woman backing away and saying she didn't use facebook while the woman with the dog was moving toward her and saying "You don't want to look at photos and keep up with [the dog] on facebook?"
What, so people's pets are now multi-level-marketing products? Or a new twist on the old chain letter "Send this letter and $1 to ten different people and in 30 days you will have $1000!" I wonder if this woman was going to use her dog to solicit donations? Has the MLM craze infected every corner of American life? Kill it with fire, I say. (MLM's, not dogs!)
I'm trying to be polite, but "we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world. It's the way Cake Vandal thought - and it seems that the Cake Vandal mentality is sadly common. (Of all the AskMeFi threads, Cake Vandal is one of those that I shall never ever forget.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:19 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
What, so people's pets are now multi-level-marketing products? Or a new twist on the old chain letter "Send this letter and $1 to ten different people and in 30 days you will have $1000!" I wonder if this woman was going to use her dog to solicit donations? Has the MLM craze infected every corner of American life? Kill it with fire, I say. (MLM's, not dogs!)
I'm trying to be polite, but "we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world. It's the way Cake Vandal thought - and it seems that the Cake Vandal mentality is sadly common. (Of all the AskMeFi threads, Cake Vandal is one of those that I shall never ever forget.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 8:19 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
As an avid outdoorist, dog owner, SAR and Trail Maintenance person, I get that dogs are probably the most aggravating thing an urban/suburban hiker will encounter. Part of the reason I live in the middle of nowhere are so I can hike and hunt with my dogs. The hiking is training for hunting season, and the hunting is training for hiking season. Plus, it was a busy at the trailhead yesterday - there were 5 cars there!
But, look, there are only ~90 million acres of national parks. There are ~190 million acres of National Forest and ~250 million acres of BLM. If you live in the eastern half of the US, most public land is either National Park or State Park - and there isn't that much of it. There are a bunch of National Forests, but they are much smaller and not as remote as what you find west of the Rockies. The eastern half of the US is also the most densely populated half, which compounds the issue - and I would gently suggest that issues that seem universally apparent to people who live there are not problems so much in the west.
In the west, most public land is BLM and then National Forest. The rules on that land are much more relaxed than at the National Parks - for example, you can hunt on BLM/NF and cannot in many National Parks. You can dispersed camp in BLM/NF land, but cannot in many National Parks. Dogs are, broadly, allowed off leash in BLM/NF land and broadly, not in National Parks.
Yes, I am well aware of the existence of Denver, SLC, and so on. The point I'm setting up here is that despite the annoyance that city dogs present on trails near cities, dogs are an astonishingly small issue. If you want to walk in a world of shit, both literally and figuratively, spend some time hiking through a grazing lease in a national forest. You just cannot believe how much shit so few cows produce. It's sort of funny that I have pack up my dogshit in a field covered with dessicated cowpies. And if you think horses are hard on trails, you should see what 75 head can do meandering back and forth across a trail in the rain and snow.
Saying that dogs are hurting nature is like saying that you can conserve water by showering less often. It's both true, and absolutely and completely dwarfed by the effects of agriculture. And it isn't just the poop. There's also resource competition for water and food, fences that block migrations, the slaughter of carnivorous species and so on. And, there is some irony in the fact that the NF/BLM lands exist because of grazing - or more to the point, local wars over grazing.
And lets not talk about resource extraction - mining and oil, primarily.
So, what I'm saying is that it's good to encourage dog owners to be more conscientious. But also, rules and behaviors that make sense for say, a trail system in Yellowstone or Shenandoah, don't make much sense for the say, the Fishlake National Forest.
Furthermore, the further you get from downtown Manhattan or Denver or SLC or whatever, the fewer issues you'll have with dogs on trails. People who are lazy about training their dogs are also pretty lazy about taking them places.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:21 AM on September 18, 2017 [33 favorites]
But, look, there are only ~90 million acres of national parks. There are ~190 million acres of National Forest and ~250 million acres of BLM. If you live in the eastern half of the US, most public land is either National Park or State Park - and there isn't that much of it. There are a bunch of National Forests, but they are much smaller and not as remote as what you find west of the Rockies. The eastern half of the US is also the most densely populated half, which compounds the issue - and I would gently suggest that issues that seem universally apparent to people who live there are not problems so much in the west.
In the west, most public land is BLM and then National Forest. The rules on that land are much more relaxed than at the National Parks - for example, you can hunt on BLM/NF and cannot in many National Parks. You can dispersed camp in BLM/NF land, but cannot in many National Parks. Dogs are, broadly, allowed off leash in BLM/NF land and broadly, not in National Parks.
Yes, I am well aware of the existence of Denver, SLC, and so on. The point I'm setting up here is that despite the annoyance that city dogs present on trails near cities, dogs are an astonishingly small issue. If you want to walk in a world of shit, both literally and figuratively, spend some time hiking through a grazing lease in a national forest. You just cannot believe how much shit so few cows produce. It's sort of funny that I have pack up my dogshit in a field covered with dessicated cowpies. And if you think horses are hard on trails, you should see what 75 head can do meandering back and forth across a trail in the rain and snow.
Saying that dogs are hurting nature is like saying that you can conserve water by showering less often. It's both true, and absolutely and completely dwarfed by the effects of agriculture. And it isn't just the poop. There's also resource competition for water and food, fences that block migrations, the slaughter of carnivorous species and so on. And, there is some irony in the fact that the NF/BLM lands exist because of grazing - or more to the point, local wars over grazing.
And lets not talk about resource extraction - mining and oil, primarily.
So, what I'm saying is that it's good to encourage dog owners to be more conscientious. But also, rules and behaviors that make sense for say, a trail system in Yellowstone or Shenandoah, don't make much sense for the say, the Fishlake National Forest.
Furthermore, the further you get from downtown Manhattan or Denver or SLC or whatever, the fewer issues you'll have with dogs on trails. People who are lazy about training their dogs are also pretty lazy about taking them places.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:21 AM on September 18, 2017 [33 favorites]
I saw a group of five guys surrounding a mule deer that had wandered into a meadow just trying to get lunch
Last fall we went on a big parks road trip that had us in Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks during the elk rut. The night we spent in a cabin at Mammoth Hot Springs was crazy. There's one bull elk in particular who hangs out near the lodge buildings, and rangers kept a large perimeter around him. For the most part they just tried to keep people from getting too close, but that's kind of hard when the elk are literally outside your door. What was particularly surprising was watching rangers herd people away from wildlife near the main lodge building, only to have other tourists who were standing there when that happened walk up for a picture and have to be herded away themselves. Seriously people, you just saw the rules being enforced.
posted by fedward at 8:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
Last fall we went on a big parks road trip that had us in Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks during the elk rut. The night we spent in a cabin at Mammoth Hot Springs was crazy. There's one bull elk in particular who hangs out near the lodge buildings, and rangers kept a large perimeter around him. For the most part they just tried to keep people from getting too close, but that's kind of hard when the elk are literally outside your door. What was particularly surprising was watching rangers herd people away from wildlife near the main lodge building, only to have other tourists who were standing there when that happened walk up for a picture and have to be herded away themselves. Seriously people, you just saw the rules being enforced.
posted by fedward at 8:22 AM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
Here in the Netherlands free space is (relatively) scarce. We have nature reserves that have to be shared by various groups. One of these groups is people with dogs.
In the National Park in the neighborhood where I live: 'de Sallandse Heuvelrug' space is reserved for this group. See Losloopgebieden for a picture (Purple is heather, Yellow stands for these dog areas, Green is forested area). For a Google translate version click here. At the bottom of the page the reasoning behind this measure is explained.
And yes, it is a beautiful place to have a walk, or go biking, or go horse riding or visit the Canadian War Cemetery or ...
Some pictures
posted by RobHoi at 8:28 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
In the National Park in the neighborhood where I live: 'de Sallandse Heuvelrug' space is reserved for this group. See Losloopgebieden for a picture (Purple is heather, Yellow stands for these dog areas, Green is forested area). For a Google translate version click here. At the bottom of the page the reasoning behind this measure is explained.
And yes, it is a beautiful place to have a walk, or go biking, or go horse riding or visit the Canadian War Cemetery or ...
Some pictures
posted by RobHoi at 8:28 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
> Seriously people, you just saw the rules being enforced.
The best time to break the rules is when the authorities have their hands full enforcing them on other people. The safest time to go 90 on the highway is immediately after you pass a cop who's already sunk his jaws in someone else's rear, as is evident by how much everyone speeds up after passing one.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:29 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
The best time to break the rules is when the authorities have their hands full enforcing them on other people. The safest time to go 90 on the highway is immediately after you pass a cop who's already sunk his jaws in someone else's rear, as is evident by how much everyone speeds up after passing one.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:29 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Circa 1959, the standard procedure for setting up camp when hiking in the back country, as I am told with probably some degree of exaggeration and feel inclined to pass on, involved such activities as: Chop down some trees for tent poles, chop down some more trees to make benches to sit on and maybe a work table, dig a latrine, scrape away some vegetation to build a big fire pit, dig another big hole to bury your garbage, and gather up big armfuls of delicate moss to use for pillows. There was plenty of wilderness to go around, nobody thought of the possibility we'd eventually use up all of it.
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
I'm not sure whether you meant this to be glib. But to me this looks like "thank goodness we have a better understanding of our impact on the natural world than we did in 1959 and are trying to be more responsible."
And it isn't just the average camper. Hell, in Yosemite the park service itself has admitted to mistakes in its approach; for instance, they used to dredge Mirror Lake to preserve it. Mirror Lake is a seasonal-only glacial lake that is literally on its last legs; it's more like a "pond" now, that only appears in spring. When I went in September, the "lake" was nothing more than a wide spot in a creek bed that was meandering through a huge open meadow. The meadow is the former lake bed which has been filled in with sediment over the course of the past couple millennia. The park service used to dredge it to keep the water filled in longer, but has since changed its policy over the past couple decades and is now letting nature take its course. They have a few displays up at various points along the trail explaining the process by which a lake like this gradually fills in and becomes a meadow; nature is ever-changing. (And honestly, it's not like the meadow is any less beautiful or majestic than the lake.)
The park has also been doing a major restoration of the biggest grove of sequoias in the park, that's been going on for over a year now. The site doesn't say much aside from the fact that the grove and trails is closed; but while I was there, I learned that what they were doing was taking up the paving from all the trails, because they learned that the water running off the pavement was causing weird flooding in patches along the trail, which was in turn impacting the plants in the grove itself.
And of course there is also the whole notion of forest fires. For years the park service put out any and every forest fire that came along, even ones that started naturally due to lighting strikes or what-not; but that just lead to an overgrowth of underbrush, which made any future fires even easier to start. Also, there are plants that actually need some low-scale fires to trigger the spreading of seeds. So now part of the parks' department maintenance of sites like Yosemite involves carefully-monitored, controlled burns of different parts of the park.
And this was the parks department. They didn't have any ill intent; their goal was to try to increase the public's access to, and enjoyment of, the natural landscape. It's just that they've since learned more about how the natural landscape itself actually works, and that they need to also account for that when they make decisions about infrastructure and public access.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
By 2059, I expect we'll be required to take a decontamination shower and be quarantined for a week before entering a park, and be weighed and inspected on exit to make sure we didn't leave anything behind.
I'm not sure whether you meant this to be glib. But to me this looks like "thank goodness we have a better understanding of our impact on the natural world than we did in 1959 and are trying to be more responsible."
And it isn't just the average camper. Hell, in Yosemite the park service itself has admitted to mistakes in its approach; for instance, they used to dredge Mirror Lake to preserve it. Mirror Lake is a seasonal-only glacial lake that is literally on its last legs; it's more like a "pond" now, that only appears in spring. When I went in September, the "lake" was nothing more than a wide spot in a creek bed that was meandering through a huge open meadow. The meadow is the former lake bed which has been filled in with sediment over the course of the past couple millennia. The park service used to dredge it to keep the water filled in longer, but has since changed its policy over the past couple decades and is now letting nature take its course. They have a few displays up at various points along the trail explaining the process by which a lake like this gradually fills in and becomes a meadow; nature is ever-changing. (And honestly, it's not like the meadow is any less beautiful or majestic than the lake.)
The park has also been doing a major restoration of the biggest grove of sequoias in the park, that's been going on for over a year now. The site doesn't say much aside from the fact that the grove and trails is closed; but while I was there, I learned that what they were doing was taking up the paving from all the trails, because they learned that the water running off the pavement was causing weird flooding in patches along the trail, which was in turn impacting the plants in the grove itself.
And of course there is also the whole notion of forest fires. For years the park service put out any and every forest fire that came along, even ones that started naturally due to lighting strikes or what-not; but that just lead to an overgrowth of underbrush, which made any future fires even easier to start. Also, there are plants that actually need some low-scale fires to trigger the spreading of seeds. So now part of the parks' department maintenance of sites like Yosemite involves carefully-monitored, controlled burns of different parts of the park.
And this was the parks department. They didn't have any ill intent; their goal was to try to increase the public's access to, and enjoyment of, the natural landscape. It's just that they've since learned more about how the natural landscape itself actually works, and that they need to also account for that when they make decisions about infrastructure and public access.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2017 [13 favorites]
Almost everyone agrees that animals that have undergone extensive training to perform critical functions for disabled people should be allowed to accompany their owners in order to perform those functions.
Unless the animal, and the animals in the back country area that the person is hiking in who recognize the dog as a predator whether it's a service animal or not, are all extensively trained for back country specific tasks then it's very arguable that the dog is in fact not trained for the functions its being asked to perform. Back country is very different from day-to-day life and assuming a dog trained in some things is trained in extreme things like "bear approaching" is problematic. Most people don't respond well to a bear approaching.
One could make an argument that, at least for much of the true backcountry (not wilderness campsites or the like where firewood is provided and ranger contact is at least daily) that nobody should be back there without backcountry-specific training - including service dogs.
People have this circular logic with regards to risk - they believe that, if something was truly something they or their dog cannot handle, they wouldn't do it - and the fact they're willing to do it means it's safe for them. No person who gets exposed to danger to their life and limb in the back country went in thinking they were likely to end up that way.
We need policies that reflect that rangers and those in the back country every day know a lot more about the risks than you and I and should be able to determine whether people aren't allowed there based on their knowledge and capacity. I had a solo, multi-day back country hike called off because one of the two rangers for that area had a heart attack - and they couldn't guarantee, for the time I was there, that anyone would cross my path. I am experienced back there but was grateful they made that call for me rather than getting there, realizing it was 12 hours of potentially wasteful driving down the drain, and just going anyways.
The ever present desire to get more people into our parks (and deeper into) for the purpose of garnering public support for protecting them is at odds with the realities of our parks - that unless people come in with respect for what is around them, they and the park will be worse as a result.
posted by notorious medium at 8:41 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
Unless the animal, and the animals in the back country area that the person is hiking in who recognize the dog as a predator whether it's a service animal or not, are all extensively trained for back country specific tasks then it's very arguable that the dog is in fact not trained for the functions its being asked to perform. Back country is very different from day-to-day life and assuming a dog trained in some things is trained in extreme things like "bear approaching" is problematic. Most people don't respond well to a bear approaching.
One could make an argument that, at least for much of the true backcountry (not wilderness campsites or the like where firewood is provided and ranger contact is at least daily) that nobody should be back there without backcountry-specific training - including service dogs.
People have this circular logic with regards to risk - they believe that, if something was truly something they or their dog cannot handle, they wouldn't do it - and the fact they're willing to do it means it's safe for them. No person who gets exposed to danger to their life and limb in the back country went in thinking they were likely to end up that way.
We need policies that reflect that rangers and those in the back country every day know a lot more about the risks than you and I and should be able to determine whether people aren't allowed there based on their knowledge and capacity. I had a solo, multi-day back country hike called off because one of the two rangers for that area had a heart attack - and they couldn't guarantee, for the time I was there, that anyone would cross my path. I am experienced back there but was grateful they made that call for me rather than getting there, realizing it was 12 hours of potentially wasteful driving down the drain, and just going anyways.
The ever present desire to get more people into our parks (and deeper into) for the purpose of garnering public support for protecting them is at odds with the realities of our parks - that unless people come in with respect for what is around them, they and the park will be worse as a result.
posted by notorious medium at 8:41 AM on September 18, 2017 [12 favorites]
our policy was that if the dog did not have a vest containing the certification paperwork to ask them to bring it next time, and if they didn't they could be asked to take the dog outside.
This is literally a violation of their Civil Rights. (Specifically: "you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to accompany the person with a disability..") People are only authorized to ask if the dog is a service dog. If they hear yes, they may not make additional demands or demand to see paperwork.
You might want to contact your library about that before they get slapped with a lawsuit.
I'm sorry the service dog thing irritates some people, but the fact is that a lot of disabilities are invisible, a lot of service dogs are actually service dogs but there is no paperwork that can be produced on demand, and disabled people are about a million times more likely to be discriminated against than people are likely to claim to be disabled when they aren't.
posted by maxsparber at 8:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [25 favorites]
This is literally a violation of their Civil Rights. (Specifically: "you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to accompany the person with a disability..") People are only authorized to ask if the dog is a service dog. If they hear yes, they may not make additional demands or demand to see paperwork.
You might want to contact your library about that before they get slapped with a lawsuit.
I'm sorry the service dog thing irritates some people, but the fact is that a lot of disabilities are invisible, a lot of service dogs are actually service dogs but there is no paperwork that can be produced on demand, and disabled people are about a million times more likely to be discriminated against than people are likely to claim to be disabled when they aren't.
posted by maxsparber at 8:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [25 favorites]
people taking it upon themselves to violate the law and the requirements of the businesses working under it can not be considered to be acting in the best faith of the society. They are acting out on their own interests. There are, no doubt, some people out there with animals as well trained as those recognized as service providers, but most are not but will be claimed so anyway as people think their cases are special
The thing is, you are not correct in your interpretation of the law.
The law concerning service animals is very simple. It does not require state certification, and it doesn't require the animals to be "as well trained as those recognized by laymen as service animals." It quite simply requires the animals to be trained to perform at least two tasks for an individual with a disability, neither of which tasks are required to involve anything around interacting with other people.
Per the ADA's own website, the health requirements of the businesses are specifically irrelevant to the issue of service animals. These people are not violating the law - you are, if you ask them to leave without good reason.
The thing is, you are not correct in your interpretation of the law.
The law concerning service animals is very simple. It does not require state certification, and it doesn't require the animals to be "as well trained as those recognized by laymen as service animals." It quite simply requires the animals to be trained to perform at least two tasks for an individual with a disability, neither of which tasks are required to involve anything around interacting with other people.
Per the ADA's own website, the health requirements of the businesses are specifically irrelevant to the issue of service animals. These people are not violating the law - you are, if you ask them to leave without good reason.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.posted by corb at 9:05 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
Unfortunately, the service dog was a very extroverted dog which would sometimes jump up on people (to lick their faces - she was a big sweetie, but also a big sweetie) and between that and looking a bit naturally menacing due to being a big old pit bull, it was very difficult for the other person.
This is the point where I don't think actual registration is a necessary thing, but if a dog is not well enough trained to not jump up on people who aren't okay with being jumped on? That dog is not a working dog. And that's relevant to this precise issue: Maybe your dog isn't trained for being out there exactly, but if your dog is a trained and working service animal, then I'm not worried about it, even though I'm very bad with big dogs, and I don't think people are really worried about having dogs like that in parks. The ones they're worried about are the ones who are not well-enough disciplined to, for example, not jump on people. That's a bare-minimum kind of standard, to me. It doesn't matter if it's friendly--if it will jump on me when I explicitly and actively don't want to be jumped on, then what that tells me is that you aren't in charge here and your dog is. Dogs that are not actively under the control of their owners at all times do not belong in public spaces, much less in areas that may be dangerous.
That doesn't mean all service dogs need paperwork, but dog owners need to understand that dogs jumping on strangers, "friendly" or not, is unacceptable under all circumstances, always, period, no matter what. Leash, harness, leave the dog at home, train the dog not to do it--I don't care what method you want to use to make it not happen, but you're responsible for it not happening. Your dog who jumps on people might be very sweet; if you let your dog jump on people, you are an asshole.
posted by Sequence at 9:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
This is the point where I don't think actual registration is a necessary thing, but if a dog is not well enough trained to not jump up on people who aren't okay with being jumped on? That dog is not a working dog. And that's relevant to this precise issue: Maybe your dog isn't trained for being out there exactly, but if your dog is a trained and working service animal, then I'm not worried about it, even though I'm very bad with big dogs, and I don't think people are really worried about having dogs like that in parks. The ones they're worried about are the ones who are not well-enough disciplined to, for example, not jump on people. That's a bare-minimum kind of standard, to me. It doesn't matter if it's friendly--if it will jump on me when I explicitly and actively don't want to be jumped on, then what that tells me is that you aren't in charge here and your dog is. Dogs that are not actively under the control of their owners at all times do not belong in public spaces, much less in areas that may be dangerous.
That doesn't mean all service dogs need paperwork, but dog owners need to understand that dogs jumping on strangers, "friendly" or not, is unacceptable under all circumstances, always, period, no matter what. Leash, harness, leave the dog at home, train the dog not to do it--I don't care what method you want to use to make it not happen, but you're responsible for it not happening. Your dog who jumps on people might be very sweet; if you let your dog jump on people, you are an asshole.
posted by Sequence at 9:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [19 favorites]
The ever present desire to get more people into our parks (and deeper into) for the purpose of garnering public support for protecting them is at odds with the realities of our parks - that unless people come in with respect for what is around them, they and the park will be worse as a result.
The thinking seems to be that the exposure will help people better understand and respect what the parks are there for, which is great it intent, but not always so great in practice because it creates a dynamic in which the exposure of the parks becomes more important than the protection of the park.
We grumble every year, when the inevitable pictures and stories of people getting too close the bears or other wildlife in the parks start to surface, that the parks need to start using their enforcement tools to deal with these moments rather than viewing them as a chance to educate the public about the dangers of getting too close. Ideally, do both - apply a big fine and a use that as a chance to educate everyone else.
posted by nubs at 9:08 AM on September 18, 2017
The thinking seems to be that the exposure will help people better understand and respect what the parks are there for, which is great it intent, but not always so great in practice because it creates a dynamic in which the exposure of the parks becomes more important than the protection of the park.
We grumble every year, when the inevitable pictures and stories of people getting too close the bears or other wildlife in the parks start to surface, that the parks need to start using their enforcement tools to deal with these moments rather than viewing them as a chance to educate the public about the dangers of getting too close. Ideally, do both - apply a big fine and a use that as a chance to educate everyone else.
posted by nubs at 9:08 AM on September 18, 2017
> You might want to contact your library about that before they get slapped with a lawsuit.
I live and work in Ontario, where the law allows employees to ask for certification if the animal's status is uncertain.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [26 favorites]
I live and work in Ontario, where the law allows employees to ask for certification if the animal's status is uncertain.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:08 AM on September 18, 2017 [26 favorites]
Some of you may or may not be aware -- businesses and other entities (such as national parks) are allowed to exclude even service dogs if it's either dangerous to the dog or "fundamentally alters" the service provided by the business or location or is dangerous to others to have the dog there. So for example, your seeing eye dog can't go on the rollercoaster with you, it's dangerous to the dog, although it must be allowed in the park. In a small place (say a crowded and tiny restaurant), a service dog that would have to lie in the aisle does not have to be accommodated; it's dangerous to the servers who need to walk in that space (and a potential fire hazard). But really the paradigmatic example is dogs interacting with other animals, whether that's in zoos, on farms, or in the wilderness. Service dogs do not have to be accommodated in any location where they are the predator species of the other animals, or the prey species (because it's disruptive to the animals who live in the business/park/zoo), and they do not have to be accommodated in any location where they might pass disease to the animals that live there.
So in a lot of these parts of the national parks it's not "no dogs, except service animals, let's argue about what constitutes a service animal." It's NO DOGS, PERIOD.
I have a friend who owns a llama farm that does a lot of public education sorts of events (farm tours for school children, etc) and llamas HATE dogs. HATE them. They're terribly dangerous to dogs. My friend is big on accessibility and they have one of the few accessible farm tours in her area and can accommodate just about any disability. So they quite frequently are in the position of telling people, "We can provide trained staff to assist you, but unfortunately we can't accommodate your dog. We do have a quiet air conditioned room with water and a dog bed where he can relax while you do the tour." Their general experience is that people with trained service animals are always like, "Oh, yes, of course, thank you for the advance notice, here are my needs if I'm without my animal, is it okay if I bring his favorite treat, are you sure it's not a bother to have him in the waiting room?" etc. Because they're aware of the limitations on service animals and not angry about it, and they're grateful that she is a) protecting their dog from the llamas and b) really going above and beyond to give the people access and make the dogs comfortable while they have to be separated. People who just like to take their dogs everywhere immediately go from zero to "I'M FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION! YOU HAVE TO ALLOW MY SERVICE DOG! SEE! I HAVE INTERNET PAPERS! HE GETS TO GO EVERYWHERE I DO!" and they're always badly-behaved untrained pets for people with nebulous explanations of what "support" they provide. They HAVE had people file complaints against them a NUMBER of times (and litigated and won several), to the point where the state civil rights division guy now sighs and is like, "Were you at B's Llama Farm?" "Yes! And they wouldn't let me take my service dog!" "You can't take a dog on a llama farm, lady." "But I have rights!" "Not near llamas."
People point out to her a lot that it'd be a lot cheaper for her to just close her farm to the public and stop doing any public engagement at all, since she gets complaints filed twice a year by moon lawyers with internet "service" dogs and every single one has to be dealt with, which they haven't yet, but it's a temptation.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [68 favorites]
So in a lot of these parts of the national parks it's not "no dogs, except service animals, let's argue about what constitutes a service animal." It's NO DOGS, PERIOD.
I have a friend who owns a llama farm that does a lot of public education sorts of events (farm tours for school children, etc) and llamas HATE dogs. HATE them. They're terribly dangerous to dogs. My friend is big on accessibility and they have one of the few accessible farm tours in her area and can accommodate just about any disability. So they quite frequently are in the position of telling people, "We can provide trained staff to assist you, but unfortunately we can't accommodate your dog. We do have a quiet air conditioned room with water and a dog bed where he can relax while you do the tour." Their general experience is that people with trained service animals are always like, "Oh, yes, of course, thank you for the advance notice, here are my needs if I'm without my animal, is it okay if I bring his favorite treat, are you sure it's not a bother to have him in the waiting room?" etc. Because they're aware of the limitations on service animals and not angry about it, and they're grateful that she is a) protecting their dog from the llamas and b) really going above and beyond to give the people access and make the dogs comfortable while they have to be separated. People who just like to take their dogs everywhere immediately go from zero to "I'M FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION! YOU HAVE TO ALLOW MY SERVICE DOG! SEE! I HAVE INTERNET PAPERS! HE GETS TO GO EVERYWHERE I DO!" and they're always badly-behaved untrained pets for people with nebulous explanations of what "support" they provide. They HAVE had people file complaints against them a NUMBER of times (and litigated and won several), to the point where the state civil rights division guy now sighs and is like, "Were you at B's Llama Farm?" "Yes! And they wouldn't let me take my service dog!" "You can't take a dog on a llama farm, lady." "But I have rights!" "Not near llamas."
People point out to her a lot that it'd be a lot cheaper for her to just close her farm to the public and stop doing any public engagement at all, since she gets complaints filed twice a year by moon lawyers with internet "service" dogs and every single one has to be dealt with, which they haven't yet, but it's a temptation.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [68 favorites]
I live and work in Ontario, where the law allows employees to ask for certification if the animal's status is uncertain.
Ah. Since this was a story about dogs in American national parks, I mistakenly presumed we were still discussing American law. Apologies.
Americans, you may not ask for identification.
posted by maxsparber at 9:24 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
Ah. Since this was a story about dogs in American national parks, I mistakenly presumed we were still discussing American law. Apologies.
Americans, you may not ask for identification.
posted by maxsparber at 9:24 AM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
Charging just means they're happy to see you.
It can. It also cannot - it depends on the dog. As well - even if it is a complete happy, friendly fun dog - the experience of being charged at by what amounts to a predator is not fun and anyone has the right to be upset if any size dog charges at them.
I have also seen many times, smaller friendly loving dogs who jump on their hind legs for attention from any stranger they meet - which means typically some scratches for people in shorts/skirts/bathing suits. Who wants that shit?
Charging at people and jumping/mugging for attention means uncontrolled and poorly trained.
I say this as an owner of dogs - heck - I don't want any of my dogs charging or jumping at ME - let alone anyone else.
posted by jkaczor at 9:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
It can. It also cannot - it depends on the dog. As well - even if it is a complete happy, friendly fun dog - the experience of being charged at by what amounts to a predator is not fun and anyone has the right to be upset if any size dog charges at them.
I have also seen many times, smaller friendly loving dogs who jump on their hind legs for attention from any stranger they meet - which means typically some scratches for people in shorts/skirts/bathing suits. Who wants that shit?
Charging at people and jumping/mugging for attention means uncontrolled and poorly trained.
I say this as an owner of dogs - heck - I don't want any of my dogs charging or jumping at ME - let alone anyone else.
posted by jkaczor at 9:27 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
When I was in Yosemite last year, I cannot tell you how many times I ran into people blatantly ignoring posted signs...
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on September 18 [18 favorites +] [!]
There's a morbidly fascinating book for sale at most of the gift shops in Yosemite: Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite. It's effectively a detailed description of every death registered in the park from the nineteenth century onward: what went wrong, what kind of rescue attempt ensued, the nature of the injuries that ended up killing the person. Sometimes I think it should be required reading for visitors, despite its grimness.
Certainly, after reading it, I felt no inclination to scramble off-path, approach deer with their razor-sharp hooves, lean too far over any edge, or go swimming in places where the current was marked hazardous. Hell, I drove five miles under the speed limit for several weeks after finishing the book. It was quite an education.
posted by mylittlepoppet at 9:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on September 18 [18 favorites +] [!]
There's a morbidly fascinating book for sale at most of the gift shops in Yosemite: Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite. It's effectively a detailed description of every death registered in the park from the nineteenth century onward: what went wrong, what kind of rescue attempt ensued, the nature of the injuries that ended up killing the person. Sometimes I think it should be required reading for visitors, despite its grimness.
Certainly, after reading it, I felt no inclination to scramble off-path, approach deer with their razor-sharp hooves, lean too far over any edge, or go swimming in places where the current was marked hazardous. Hell, I drove five miles under the speed limit for several weeks after finishing the book. It was quite an education.
posted by mylittlepoppet at 9:54 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
People point out to her a lot that it'd be a lot cheaper for her to just close her farm to the public and stop doing any public engagement at all, since she gets complaints filed twice a year by moon lawyers with internet "service" dogs and every single one has to be dealt with, which they haven't yet, but it's a temptation.
Sure it is - who needs all that drama?
posted by thelonius at 9:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sure it is - who needs all that drama?
posted by thelonius at 9:55 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Pets are the new smoking.
In Brisbane, Australia, stray cats are now legally classified as restricted biological matter, to be destroyed on sight. It is a crime to feed or shelter them, and the biosecurity authorities are raiding cat shelters and seizing and destroying cats.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
In Brisbane, Australia, stray cats are now legally classified as restricted biological matter, to be destroyed on sight. It is a crime to feed or shelter them, and the biosecurity authorities are raiding cat shelters and seizing and destroying cats.
posted by acb at 10:07 AM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Depending on the jurisdiction and what they catch your dog doing (chasing park animals, for instance), a US park ranger could shoot your dog and fine you. If I had a dog, I would just kennel it or leave it with friends before taking a trip to the national park.
posted by pracowity at 10:07 AM on September 18, 2017
posted by pracowity at 10:07 AM on September 18, 2017
Sure it is - who needs all that drama?
Llamas? :D
posted by Autumnheart at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
Llamas? :D
posted by Autumnheart at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
> There's a local cemetery where I see people walking their dogs. It boggles my mind that they're not kicked out.
Cemeteries are planned, landscaped properties that are set up intentionally for (living) people to wander freely, with the expectation that funerals will require the land to support visits by larger groups of people, equipment, and vehicles, so the issues discussed in this article about the dangers of the backcountry and more heightened sensitivity to the ecosystem don't really apply. In fact, the historic landscape cemetery movement specifically intended to encourage the broader use of cemeteries as public parks suitable for picnics and casual visitors, not just as a place for those mourning family members interred there.
It's not inherently disrespectful to walk a dog in a cemetery as long as you're following the more ordinary courtesy rules as you (hopefully) would at local playgrounds, rec fields, sidewalks, etc. about not letting your dog jump on strangers and not leaving dogshit behind. It's not a church sanctuary.
posted by desuetude at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [17 favorites]
Cemeteries are planned, landscaped properties that are set up intentionally for (living) people to wander freely, with the expectation that funerals will require the land to support visits by larger groups of people, equipment, and vehicles, so the issues discussed in this article about the dangers of the backcountry and more heightened sensitivity to the ecosystem don't really apply. In fact, the historic landscape cemetery movement specifically intended to encourage the broader use of cemeteries as public parks suitable for picnics and casual visitors, not just as a place for those mourning family members interred there.
It's not inherently disrespectful to walk a dog in a cemetery as long as you're following the more ordinary courtesy rules as you (hopefully) would at local playgrounds, rec fields, sidewalks, etc. about not letting your dog jump on strangers and not leaving dogshit behind. It's not a church sanctuary.
posted by desuetude at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [17 favorites]
there is a quarter mile segment at the beginning of a great local trail, that smells as if four dogs were kept in a basement for a year. without any clean up.
I live in an apartment building in a really dense neighborhood in Chicago. There are lots of dogs. Dogs in our building. Dogs in the neighboring buildings. Dogs everywhere. They are cute and great and I like that they exist. 99% of the owners pick up their dogs poop. Yay!
But the urine. Good god the urine. I step over countless puddles on the concrete everyday. The back of our building immediately outside the back door had a garden that has since been made into a slate chip garden (because the grass died) which reeks something fierce on warm humid days. Our super sprays it with a scent neutralizer twice a day. That's just from the dogs in our building - maybe 10 to 15 dogs.
[Part of the issue is that there is an ever decreasing amount of area that the dogs can go on - almost all the boulevards are being caged off to prevent dogs from using them. All the building frontages have been since I moved here. So the few remaining accessible spots become dedicated dog urinals.]
Now imagine a popular trail head where the dogs have been in a car for a long time before they arrive.
I'm surprised people are not complaining about rivers of dog urine and the subsequent erosion.
posted by srboisvert at 10:23 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
I live in an apartment building in a really dense neighborhood in Chicago. There are lots of dogs. Dogs in our building. Dogs in the neighboring buildings. Dogs everywhere. They are cute and great and I like that they exist. 99% of the owners pick up their dogs poop. Yay!
But the urine. Good god the urine. I step over countless puddles on the concrete everyday. The back of our building immediately outside the back door had a garden that has since been made into a slate chip garden (because the grass died) which reeks something fierce on warm humid days. Our super sprays it with a scent neutralizer twice a day. That's just from the dogs in our building - maybe 10 to 15 dogs.
[Part of the issue is that there is an ever decreasing amount of area that the dogs can go on - almost all the boulevards are being caged off to prevent dogs from using them. All the building frontages have been since I moved here. So the few remaining accessible spots become dedicated dog urinals.]
Now imagine a popular trail head where the dogs have been in a car for a long time before they arrive.
I'm surprised people are not complaining about rivers of dog urine and the subsequent erosion.
posted by srboisvert at 10:23 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
approach deer with their razor-sharp hooves,
If this thread does nothing else for people, please know that deer are assholes and are capable of hurting you. You don't want to go anywhere near a deer. They look cute but they are mean jerks.
posted by winna at 10:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
If this thread does nothing else for people, please know that deer are assholes and are capable of hurting you. You don't want to go anywhere near a deer. They look cute but they are mean jerks.
posted by winna at 10:36 AM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
yikes, if I had a service dog I would definitely never mention it here, seeing how many people are smugly 100% certain that they know who does and does not deserve to have one.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:38 AM on September 18, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:38 AM on September 18, 2017 [20 favorites]
There's a morbidly fascinating book for sale at most of the gift shops in Yosemite: Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite. It's effectively a detailed description of every death registered in the park from the nineteenth century onward: what went wrong, what kind of rescue attempt ensued, the nature of the injuries that ended up killing the person.
There is also one for the Grand Canyon as well.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
There is also one for the Grand Canyon as well.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 10:42 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Many, many years ago in a time known as the seventies, slkinsey mère et père took the family on one of our annual hikes of the High Windy Trail near my grandfather's cabin outside Black Mountain, NC. This time, for whatever reason, they decided it would be a good idea to bring our bull terrier Pompey along. He was perfectly well behaved, but bull terriers are not endurance dogs and once we reached the top Pompey declared that he was done with walking for the day. My father had to carry him back down. Dad's been gone almost three years, and I bet he's still pissed off about that.
posted by slkinsey at 10:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 10:53 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
deer are assholes and are capable of hurting you
Heck yeah they are. We have deer in our neighborhood, like, a lot of them. Let the dog out in the (fenced) backyard one evening and didn't realize there were deer back there. He lets out his hound dog bray (he's a 15 lb. mutt but he's got that bray...maybe beagle?) and took off. Seconds later, I hear a THUD and a YELP and he runs back with his tail between his legs. Scared that he got kicked in the head, I called the emergency vet who talked me through a cursory examination to see if we needed to bring him in. Luckily, like ridiculously luckily, he got kicked in his rump and ended up with just his dignity broken (we took him to our vet the next day to make sure he was okay). The vet said that if he had been kicked in the stomach, he might have had serious internal injuries. Kicked in the head? Probably would have killed him. We figure the deer didn't get a good kick in, or pup's reflexes saved him.
Deer are assholes.
posted by cooker girl at 10:59 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Heck yeah they are. We have deer in our neighborhood, like, a lot of them. Let the dog out in the (fenced) backyard one evening and didn't realize there were deer back there. He lets out his hound dog bray (he's a 15 lb. mutt but he's got that bray...maybe beagle?) and took off. Seconds later, I hear a THUD and a YELP and he runs back with his tail between his legs. Scared that he got kicked in the head, I called the emergency vet who talked me through a cursory examination to see if we needed to bring him in. Luckily, like ridiculously luckily, he got kicked in his rump and ended up with just his dignity broken (we took him to our vet the next day to make sure he was okay). The vet said that if he had been kicked in the stomach, he might have had serious internal injuries. Kicked in the head? Probably would have killed him. We figure the deer didn't get a good kick in, or pup's reflexes saved him.
Deer are assholes.
posted by cooker girl at 10:59 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
There's a local cemetery where I see people walking their dogs. It boggles my mind that they're not kicked out.
Well,speaking for myself, I'm tired of having other people's offleash dogs running up to my reactive dog when we go for walks in nearby fields and parks. It's far easier to hang out with the bums in our local pioneer cemetery, where I can keep my dog on a longer leash and let him run around on short green grass. Meanwhile, I can admire old gravestones, pick up a piece or two of trash, and have a quiet walk.
I know it's against the rules, and I know this whole thread is about how dog owners love thinking rules don't apply to them, but unlike most national parks or national forests, this is a patch of cleared land at a busy intersection in an urban area. I avoid the cemetery near holidays, I keep my pup from peeing on the gravestones, and we immediately turn around and leave if we see anyone enter the cemetery area we're in. We try to be as respectful as possible (unless he sees a squirrel, at which point there will be barking), and it should go without saying that I always pick up our poop. It's not ideal, but it brings some piece and quiet to our days, and I'd like to think at least some of the dead wouldn't mind our respectful presence.
posted by redsparkler at 11:04 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
Well,speaking for myself, I'm tired of having other people's offleash dogs running up to my reactive dog when we go for walks in nearby fields and parks. It's far easier to hang out with the bums in our local pioneer cemetery, where I can keep my dog on a longer leash and let him run around on short green grass. Meanwhile, I can admire old gravestones, pick up a piece or two of trash, and have a quiet walk.
I know it's against the rules, and I know this whole thread is about how dog owners love thinking rules don't apply to them, but unlike most national parks or national forests, this is a patch of cleared land at a busy intersection in an urban area. I avoid the cemetery near holidays, I keep my pup from peeing on the gravestones, and we immediately turn around and leave if we see anyone enter the cemetery area we're in. We try to be as respectful as possible (unless he sees a squirrel, at which point there will be barking), and it should go without saying that I always pick up our poop. It's not ideal, but it brings some piece and quiet to our days, and I'd like to think at least some of the dead wouldn't mind our respectful presence.
posted by redsparkler at 11:04 AM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
we already put a finger in it, why not the whole hand" is the way a child thinks about a cake, not the way an adult thinks about the world.
*flashes back to The Bee Cake Incident*
Well, that's the rest of my day shot.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
*flashes back to The Bee Cake Incident*
Well, that's the rest of my day shot.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
One other data point for folks who might consider taking their dogs off leash in wilderness areas: snakes don't like being surprised. I was speaking with a friend on Saturday who used to live in the local foothills. He talked about how he used to take his very well trained dog on a daily 2 mile walk through a wooded canyon near his house. One day the dog was tromping a few feet ahead of him and startled a rattlesnake, which bit the dog on the neck. The dog collapsed a few minutes later and had to be rushed to the vet. The dog ultimately survived, but it took $3k worth of anti-venom to save him (plus the later cost of a snake-aversion course for the dog and my friend). Point being: the outdoors ISN'T one giant, groomed park, and even parks that are designated as such aren't always safe spaces. I have seen enough wildlife in my time to know that the North American outdoors does have predators and other animals that bite, sting, and attack. The smaller the pet, the greater the risk to said pet. Just sayin'...
posted by mosk at 11:15 AM on September 18, 2017
posted by mosk at 11:15 AM on September 18, 2017
>It's not inherently disrespectful to walk a dog in a cemetery
GIS "piss on his grave" yields more than 26,000 results. There is a reason for this.
You may not care where dogs pee, and I don't care either, but graveyards are for the kind of people that do.
Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
posted by JulesER at 11:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
GIS "piss on his grave" yields more than 26,000 results. There is a reason for this.
You may not care where dogs pee, and I don't care either, but graveyards are for the kind of people that do.
Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
posted by JulesER at 11:15 AM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oh wait- that was the "Cake Vandal" incident, as Rosie M. Banks pointed out earlier. Nevertheless. Day shot.
Also, if you want to go to somewhere where your dog will be welcome wherever, and where there's also a bunch of dog shit lying about all over the place, just go to Paris.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:16 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, if you want to go to somewhere where your dog will be welcome wherever, and where there's also a bunch of dog shit lying about all over the place, just go to Paris.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:16 AM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
If this thread does nothing else for people, please know that deer are assholes and are capable of hurting you. You don't want to go anywhere near a deer. They look cute but they are mean jerks.
Sort of. I was recently on a multiweek backpacking trip, and deer were often found near/in my campsite after I set up. They aren't super territorial, and are willing to leave you alone - unlike elk or moose. The nice thing about deer is that they don't like to hang out near bear - and so if deer are around, it's a good sign that bear are not, at least, in that immediate area.
The best wildlife encounter was this past summer. I had made my through about 2500 head of sheep to find a nice campsite near a stream, and set about making camp. I filtered and boiled some water for dinner, setting the bag aside to steep while I got my bed setup. I crawled out of the tent to see a very large white Pyrenees grab my dinner and start sauntering off down the trail. I yelled at him and he set the bag down and looked at me. So, I walked over there and grabbed it. The dog wasn't around earlier, and I had no idea where he'd come from. Sheep usually mean protective sheepdogs and had been looking. Plus, I'm literally 40 miles from the nearest town, deep in the San Juan mountains - I prefer to not be surprised by animals.
The dog hung out there while I was finishing setting up, and then as I had dinner. I let him have the remanants in the bag when this short, and really old, NA sheepherder came up the trail. He laughed at his dog with his face stuck in the bag and apologized in very broken english for him, and then he promised to move the sheep out of that drainage into the next one over. He offered me some jerky, and a little whiskey, and then moved on.
The sheep weren't too loud when they were in the valley with me, but it was worse after he moved them. Do you know what the cries of 2000 sheep attenuated and echoing through the mountains sounds like ? The screams of the damned. I am certain I was camped across the river from Hell that night.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
Sort of. I was recently on a multiweek backpacking trip, and deer were often found near/in my campsite after I set up. They aren't super territorial, and are willing to leave you alone - unlike elk or moose. The nice thing about deer is that they don't like to hang out near bear - and so if deer are around, it's a good sign that bear are not, at least, in that immediate area.
The best wildlife encounter was this past summer. I had made my through about 2500 head of sheep to find a nice campsite near a stream, and set about making camp. I filtered and boiled some water for dinner, setting the bag aside to steep while I got my bed setup. I crawled out of the tent to see a very large white Pyrenees grab my dinner and start sauntering off down the trail. I yelled at him and he set the bag down and looked at me. So, I walked over there and grabbed it. The dog wasn't around earlier, and I had no idea where he'd come from. Sheep usually mean protective sheepdogs and had been looking. Plus, I'm literally 40 miles from the nearest town, deep in the San Juan mountains - I prefer to not be surprised by animals.
The dog hung out there while I was finishing setting up, and then as I had dinner. I let him have the remanants in the bag when this short, and really old, NA sheepherder came up the trail. He laughed at his dog with his face stuck in the bag and apologized in very broken english for him, and then he promised to move the sheep out of that drainage into the next one over. He offered me some jerky, and a little whiskey, and then moved on.
The sheep weren't too loud when they were in the valley with me, but it was worse after he moved them. Do you know what the cries of 2000 sheep attenuated and echoing through the mountains sounds like ? The screams of the damned. I am certain I was camped across the river from Hell that night.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
I'm a pet lover, but I have seen soooooooooooo many shitty, entitled dog owners that it makes my goddamn blood boil.
Your dog is jumping up on me. That's not okay.
You're dog is literally pulling you towards me while barking and snapping. That's not okay.
Your off-leash dog continues to bark at me from two feet away while you call him. That's not okay.
Dog ownership should require a licensing program for the owners. So many folks don't know the basics of 'come', 'sit' and 'heel'. I love so many dogs and hate so many owners.
Thanks for listening.
posted by Phreesh at 11:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
Your dog is jumping up on me. That's not okay.
You're dog is literally pulling you towards me while barking and snapping. That's not okay.
Your off-leash dog continues to bark at me from two feet away while you call him. That's not okay.
Dog ownership should require a licensing program for the owners. So many folks don't know the basics of 'come', 'sit' and 'heel'. I love so many dogs and hate so many owners.
Thanks for listening.
posted by Phreesh at 11:17 AM on September 18, 2017 [16 favorites]
The thing is, you are not correct in your interpretation of the law.
Funny, 'cause this is the law we follow, though not yet asking the second set of questions, but we may have to start due to all the pets that are claimed as service animals that fail the bolded standard. If people want to lie, they certainly can, but that was the whole point of my original complaint about pretense and causing an additional burden to people requiring use of actual service animals. If your pet doesn't meet that bolded set of requirements listed below as those determining a service animal, then you are manipulating the law for your own benefit if you claim your pet as one.
RCW 49.60.215 prohibits discrimination in a place of public accommodation due to the “use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person.” WAC 162-26-130 requires “fair service in a place of public accommodation regardless of the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person as well as because of the disability itself.”
Service animals must be allowed into all areas of a place of public accommodation where the general public is allowed – this includes dining and eating areas, restrooms, and areas where food is sold. A place of public accommodation cannot request that the service animal be removed unless it creates a risk of harm. This risk must be actual, and cannot be speculative or based on a fear of dogs. In addition, if an animal exhibits disruptive, poor or unsanitary behavior, it would not be considered a trained service animal, and can be removed.
Questions a business can ask:
First a business can ask if the animal is a pet. If the animal is a pet, the business can exclude the animal. If the handler answers that the animal is a service animal, the business can proceed to a second question
Second, the business can ask a task or training question, such as, “What is this animal trained to do for you?” The answer to this question will determine if the business needs to allow the animal or if it can exclude the animal.
- If the handler refuses to answer, the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler discloses their disability, but refuses to disclose what the animal is trained to do for them, the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler provides documentation or certification that the animal is a service animal, but neither the documentation nor the handler can explain what the animal is trained to do, the business can exclude the animal. (There is no state or federal service animal registry or certification process, so such documentation has no legal meaning and is often purchased on the Internet.)
- If the handler answers only that the animal can sit, stay, lie down, come when called, or do something else related to obedience and good manners, this does not indicate the animal is trained to provide services for a disability, and the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler answers that the animal makes them feel better, helps them calm down, eases their depression, or something similar, this would indicate that it is the animal’s presence alone that helps the handler, and that the animal is not trained to do a task or provide a service. Because the animal does not meet the training requirement, the business can exclude the animal.
- If the handler answers that the animal is trained to guide them, help with balance or mobility, alert them to a condition (either physical or situational), pick up or carry items, remind them to take medication, get help, stabilize them during a seizure, redirect their attention from a trigger, or do some other task or provide some service that the person is unable to do themselves or helps with a disability, then the animal is a trained service and must be allowed.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:08 PM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
Funny, 'cause this is the law we follow, though not yet asking the second set of questions, but we may have to start due to all the pets that are claimed as service animals that fail the bolded standard. If people want to lie, they certainly can, but that was the whole point of my original complaint about pretense and causing an additional burden to people requiring use of actual service animals. If your pet doesn't meet that bolded set of requirements listed below as those determining a service animal, then you are manipulating the law for your own benefit if you claim your pet as one.
RCW 49.60.215 prohibits discrimination in a place of public accommodation due to the “use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person.” WAC 162-26-130 requires “fair service in a place of public accommodation regardless of the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person as well as because of the disability itself.”
Service animals must be allowed into all areas of a place of public accommodation where the general public is allowed – this includes dining and eating areas, restrooms, and areas where food is sold. A place of public accommodation cannot request that the service animal be removed unless it creates a risk of harm. This risk must be actual, and cannot be speculative or based on a fear of dogs. In addition, if an animal exhibits disruptive, poor or unsanitary behavior, it would not be considered a trained service animal, and can be removed.
Questions a business can ask:
First a business can ask if the animal is a pet. If the animal is a pet, the business can exclude the animal. If the handler answers that the animal is a service animal, the business can proceed to a second question
Second, the business can ask a task or training question, such as, “What is this animal trained to do for you?” The answer to this question will determine if the business needs to allow the animal or if it can exclude the animal.
- If the handler refuses to answer, the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler discloses their disability, but refuses to disclose what the animal is trained to do for them, the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler provides documentation or certification that the animal is a service animal, but neither the documentation nor the handler can explain what the animal is trained to do, the business can exclude the animal. (There is no state or federal service animal registry or certification process, so such documentation has no legal meaning and is often purchased on the Internet.)
- If the handler answers only that the animal can sit, stay, lie down, come when called, or do something else related to obedience and good manners, this does not indicate the animal is trained to provide services for a disability, and the animal can be excluded.
- If the handler answers that the animal makes them feel better, helps them calm down, eases their depression, or something similar, this would indicate that it is the animal’s presence alone that helps the handler, and that the animal is not trained to do a task or provide a service. Because the animal does not meet the training requirement, the business can exclude the animal.
- If the handler answers that the animal is trained to guide them, help with balance or mobility, alert them to a condition (either physical or situational), pick up or carry items, remind them to take medication, get help, stabilize them during a seizure, redirect their attention from a trigger, or do some other task or provide some service that the person is unable to do themselves or helps with a disability, then the animal is a trained service and must be allowed.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:08 PM on September 18, 2017 [5 favorites]
Charging just means they're happy to see you.
Or not.
If my akita charged you, she was most decidedly not happy to see you.
And seeing as she weighed over 125 lbs, in a very short period of time you would not be happy to see her, either.
posted by zarq at 12:17 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
Or not.
If my akita charged you, she was most decidedly not happy to see you.
And seeing as she weighed over 125 lbs, in a very short period of time you would not be happy to see her, either.
posted by zarq at 12:17 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you love your dog, please keep his nose out of my crotch, and don't let him piss on my flower bed. You don't get to make me like your dog.
Back in the day I had a pair of mules that I loved to take into the back country. One time, when I was traveling through a Nat'l Forest, I met a couple on a steep and narrow section of trail. We stopped and exchanged pleasantries, and as is the custom, they moved their two shepherd type dogs off the trail, on the up hill side. Her dogs were off leash, but they seemed to me to be under close control by the woman. As I began to move on, one of the dogs headed for my lead mule's rear legs. I asked the lady to control her dog, and for some reason she took this as an affront. I think she thought I was trying to protect my mule; his name was Teddy, and he was usually a sweet guy, but he didn't like dogs. In fact he and his half brother liked to chase neighborhood dogs that wandered into their pasture. Anyhow, while she was busy telling me that I wasn't the boss of her, Teddy reached back and took the shepherd's collar in his teeth, and like a catapult, flung him down the hill. The dog hit the dirt about fifty feet down the side of the hill, and amid a series of woofs, ooffs and yips, rolled a while before he regained his feet. He didn't seemed to be much harmed, but I could hear that woman cursing me and my mules for the next two hundred yards.
Times have changed. About fifty years ago I took a stock dog with me into the high country as a matter of course. She was good for a number of chores--keeping the mules out of the grain bag, for example, and helping me find the horses if they wandered away from camp during the night. She didn't chase deer, although it took me a couple of years to get her mind right about that. Back in those days I let her find her own chow on our back country trips, usually a fat marmot or hapless ground squirrel, sometimes a snake of one stripe or another. By the nineties that sort of behavior was no longer possible. Times had changed and I had learned new stuff about how life works in the mountains.
Over the years I have been lucky to have partnered with a couple of great dogs, also a couple of worthless mutts that I was very fond of. I always thought: If you kick my dog, you kick me. So I get it that a person's little muffin can do no wrong. These folks won't be consoled by any explanation I might offer when I slap little muffin's nose out of my crotch, or squirt him with a hose when he lifts a leg or squats in my flower bed. If your service dog is doing his job, then certificate or no, I'll have no issues with him. The companionship offered by dogs is unique and as far as I'm concerned, unassailable. But if you want to take him out in public, both you and little muffin should learn appropriate behavior. If you don't, then unpleasant things will happen.
posted by mule98J at 12:28 PM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
Back in the day I had a pair of mules that I loved to take into the back country. One time, when I was traveling through a Nat'l Forest, I met a couple on a steep and narrow section of trail. We stopped and exchanged pleasantries, and as is the custom, they moved their two shepherd type dogs off the trail, on the up hill side. Her dogs were off leash, but they seemed to me to be under close control by the woman. As I began to move on, one of the dogs headed for my lead mule's rear legs. I asked the lady to control her dog, and for some reason she took this as an affront. I think she thought I was trying to protect my mule; his name was Teddy, and he was usually a sweet guy, but he didn't like dogs. In fact he and his half brother liked to chase neighborhood dogs that wandered into their pasture. Anyhow, while she was busy telling me that I wasn't the boss of her, Teddy reached back and took the shepherd's collar in his teeth, and like a catapult, flung him down the hill. The dog hit the dirt about fifty feet down the side of the hill, and amid a series of woofs, ooffs and yips, rolled a while before he regained his feet. He didn't seemed to be much harmed, but I could hear that woman cursing me and my mules for the next two hundred yards.
Times have changed. About fifty years ago I took a stock dog with me into the high country as a matter of course. She was good for a number of chores--keeping the mules out of the grain bag, for example, and helping me find the horses if they wandered away from camp during the night. She didn't chase deer, although it took me a couple of years to get her mind right about that. Back in those days I let her find her own chow on our back country trips, usually a fat marmot or hapless ground squirrel, sometimes a snake of one stripe or another. By the nineties that sort of behavior was no longer possible. Times had changed and I had learned new stuff about how life works in the mountains.
Over the years I have been lucky to have partnered with a couple of great dogs, also a couple of worthless mutts that I was very fond of. I always thought: If you kick my dog, you kick me. So I get it that a person's little muffin can do no wrong. These folks won't be consoled by any explanation I might offer when I slap little muffin's nose out of my crotch, or squirt him with a hose when he lifts a leg or squats in my flower bed. If your service dog is doing his job, then certificate or no, I'll have no issues with him. The companionship offered by dogs is unique and as far as I'm concerned, unassailable. But if you want to take him out in public, both you and little muffin should learn appropriate behavior. If you don't, then unpleasant things will happen.
posted by mule98J at 12:28 PM on September 18, 2017 [18 favorites]
And, like, being charged on by a dog on a trail doesn't mean it's not friendly. In my experience, 100% of the time it means that the dog is just excited to meet you. An unfriendly dog will freeze, crouch, put its ears back and hackles up, growl, bark, etc. Charging just means they're happy to see you. I'm not saying it's good behavior (it's not) but it doesn't mean aggression.
In my case, it means I have a half-inch numb spot on the back of my thigh where a charging dog tore my leg open with its fangs. It wasn't a very big dog, just big enough to do that.
When my child was about two, we had several encounters with a vicious little mutt that lived several houses away; as soon as we pulled into the driveway, it would race down toward us snarling and shrieking, even though we had never been near it before or interacted with it in any way. I was completely prepared to kick it to death to protect my kid, but its owner retrieved it in time. And I told her what would happen to her nasty little dog if she hadn't, meaning she kept it inside after that.
I have had dogs, and I liked many of them, but in general, I do not trust loose ones, or the people who let them loose.
posted by emjaybee at 12:32 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
In my case, it means I have a half-inch numb spot on the back of my thigh where a charging dog tore my leg open with its fangs. It wasn't a very big dog, just big enough to do that.
When my child was about two, we had several encounters with a vicious little mutt that lived several houses away; as soon as we pulled into the driveway, it would race down toward us snarling and shrieking, even though we had never been near it before or interacted with it in any way. I was completely prepared to kick it to death to protect my kid, but its owner retrieved it in time. And I told her what would happen to her nasty little dog if she hadn't, meaning she kept it inside after that.
I have had dogs, and I liked many of them, but in general, I do not trust loose ones, or the people who let them loose.
posted by emjaybee at 12:32 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
You may not care where dogs pee, and I don't care either, but graveyards are for the kind of people that do.
I find dead people are the least likely to care about having a dog pee on them of all the classes of people, or above them as is probably most accurate.
posted by notorious medium at 12:38 PM on September 18, 2017
I find dead people are the least likely to care about having a dog pee on them of all the classes of people, or above them as is probably most accurate.
posted by notorious medium at 12:38 PM on September 18, 2017
I was completely prepared to kick it to death to protect my kid
The time I got bitten, I was amazed at how quick the dog was. Even if I had wanted to strike it to try to protect myself (I thought I was going to defuse the situation, like I had been able to do every other time I had been in an adverse dog encounter) , there is no way I would have succeeded. It was in and out with the actual bite very fast.
posted by thelonius at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
The time I got bitten, I was amazed at how quick the dog was. Even if I had wanted to strike it to try to protect myself (I thought I was going to defuse the situation, like I had been able to do every other time I had been in an adverse dog encounter) , there is no way I would have succeeded. It was in and out with the actual bite very fast.
posted by thelonius at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
One of the conversations I've heard about parks is balancing the goals of near-universal accessibility against the needs for preservation and cleanliness, etc. Nothing frustrates me more than well-intentioned people complaining about paved trails or parking lots, because those are necessary for visitors with limited mobility. A road isn't great for the environment, but without them very few people would ever see the parks. I've seen hiking blogs express the sentiment that "I climbed all the way this mountain up only to see people waddling out of their cars at the top." It's a nasty way of seeing your fellow park visitors, and I think those of us who are not restricted in our access need to be careful not to fall into this way of thinking.
I think dogs are a similar issue, whether or not they meet the legal definition of a service dog. The fact is that some people may truly need a service dog, or they may not feel comfortable in the park without their dog, or they may want to have their dog around because that companionship is meaningful to them. Reducing it to a simple issue of "well, they're just too selfish to think about the impact of their pooch" doesn't do justice to the actual issue at hand.
I don't think we reflect enough on what we, as a nation, want out of our parks, in clear terms. There's a lot of broad, sweeping language about exposing people to nature, but pretty much any incursion into that nature is going to be detrimental to it. I do not think pets belong in parks if they cannot be there without endangering wildlife or public safety. Period. If it were up to me, I would never see a dog in the woods, leashed or not. But it's very easy for me to draw that line because I don't have a dog and my access to the parks would not be impeded in any way. If we only ever talk about this in terms of selfishness vs. the greater good, it's going to be very difficult for a dog-owner to argue in favor of bringing their dog in the woods, because the terms of the conversation are already weighted against them.
I think I wrote my rambling comment last night because as much as I don't personally want to see dogs in parks, I didn't want to just take part in an angry, one-sided conversation. Sometimes I get super grumpy when I see a dog off-leash in a local park, but I want to be careful that I'm not just becoming the rude, snippy hiker who hates seeing people in the parking lot. Maybe nobody else can relate, but for me, there's a relatively fine line between wanting the rules to be respected for the greater good, and getting unreasonably angry when I hear a motorcycle in the distance, or when people are talking too loudly on the trails. This is why I've been thinking about the way I look at parks, because that influences how I see the people in them.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:43 PM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
I think dogs are a similar issue, whether or not they meet the legal definition of a service dog. The fact is that some people may truly need a service dog, or they may not feel comfortable in the park without their dog, or they may want to have their dog around because that companionship is meaningful to them. Reducing it to a simple issue of "well, they're just too selfish to think about the impact of their pooch" doesn't do justice to the actual issue at hand.
I don't think we reflect enough on what we, as a nation, want out of our parks, in clear terms. There's a lot of broad, sweeping language about exposing people to nature, but pretty much any incursion into that nature is going to be detrimental to it. I do not think pets belong in parks if they cannot be there without endangering wildlife or public safety. Period. If it were up to me, I would never see a dog in the woods, leashed or not. But it's very easy for me to draw that line because I don't have a dog and my access to the parks would not be impeded in any way. If we only ever talk about this in terms of selfishness vs. the greater good, it's going to be very difficult for a dog-owner to argue in favor of bringing their dog in the woods, because the terms of the conversation are already weighted against them.
I think I wrote my rambling comment last night because as much as I don't personally want to see dogs in parks, I didn't want to just take part in an angry, one-sided conversation. Sometimes I get super grumpy when I see a dog off-leash in a local park, but I want to be careful that I'm not just becoming the rude, snippy hiker who hates seeing people in the parking lot. Maybe nobody else can relate, but for me, there's a relatively fine line between wanting the rules to be respected for the greater good, and getting unreasonably angry when I hear a motorcycle in the distance, or when people are talking too loudly on the trails. This is why I've been thinking about the way I look at parks, because that influences how I see the people in them.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:43 PM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
Also, yeah, I have been attacked by dogs that were charging at me (which is why I had a phobia of them for half my life). When I see a dog running straight for me, I do not assume they just want to lick my face. More to the point, not everyone wants a dog licking their face or scratching their knees out of friendliness. I feel like a jerk to have to say it to people, but as much as I like dogs now, I really don't want them touching me. I want people to be considerate of the fact that I might not appreciate that kind of contact the way they do.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
So we had a chronic problem in a shared space where one regular user had been attacked by a dog and was deeply, intractably afraid of them and another user had a large pit bull mix emotional support dog (so designated by the person, but honestly, I had no reason to doubt her - she told me the whole thing about the dog and the issues that the person had, and her lack of access to care). Unfortunately, the service dog was a very extroverted dog which would sometimes jump up on people (to lick their faces - she was a big sweetie, but also a big sweetie) and between that and looking a bit naturally menacing due to being a big old pit bull, it was very difficult for the other person.
It's important, I think (at least in the context of US law), to make a clear distinction between Service Animals and any other type of animal, from emotional support animals, to companion animals, to pets, to whatever other terminology is used. The law (such as it is) is pretty clear on what a Service Animal is. It is 1) A dog or miniature horse that is 2) trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.* There is no pertinent regulatory body or organization. All Service Animals are self-designated. Businesses have a legal responsibility to permit Service Animals (with very few exceptions), but are not required (by Federal law, at least) to admit other types of animals.
*These are maybe not useful divisions to have. Number 1 potentially excludes some animals that could meet standard 2, and standard 2 excludes animals whose presence is what provides benefit to their owner. That said, they are the relevant Federal law at the moment.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:49 PM on September 18, 2017
It's important, I think (at least in the context of US law), to make a clear distinction between Service Animals and any other type of animal, from emotional support animals, to companion animals, to pets, to whatever other terminology is used. The law (such as it is) is pretty clear on what a Service Animal is. It is 1) A dog or miniature horse that is 2) trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.* There is no pertinent regulatory body or organization. All Service Animals are self-designated. Businesses have a legal responsibility to permit Service Animals (with very few exceptions), but are not required (by Federal law, at least) to admit other types of animals.
*These are maybe not useful divisions to have. Number 1 potentially excludes some animals that could meet standard 2, and standard 2 excludes animals whose presence is what provides benefit to their owner. That said, they are the relevant Federal law at the moment.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:49 PM on September 18, 2017
Nothing frustrates me more than well-intentioned people complaining about paved trails or parking lots, because those are necessary for visitors with limited mobility. … I've seen hiking blogs express the sentiment that "I climbed all the way this mountain up only to see people waddling out of their cars at the top."
Well, the people saying that are jerks. I'm no universal apologist for the National Park Service (they mismanage a lot of public land in DC) but I have found that at the major parks they do attempt to provide some accessibility to major sites, while also providing backcountry experiences to people who desire them and are able to enjoy them.
I think dogs are a similar issue, whether or not they meet the legal definition of a service dog. The fact is that some people may truly need a service dog, or they may not feel comfortable in the park without their dog, or they may want to have their dog around because that companionship is meaningful to them.
There also has to be a consideration for the ranger who has to enforce the rules, though. When one person's companion animal is another person's fake service dog, then the ranger is pressed on the spot into making a judgment about the nature of the relationship between the owner and the dog. On this front the National Park Service is at least consistent: you're allowed leashed dogs on paved trails only. You are not allowed dogs, leashed or unleashed, on wilderness trails in lands managed by NPS. It's a pretty simple rule. I'd argue that failing to accommodate for a service animal on a backcountry trail is about as much of a problem as failing to provide an ADA-compliant wheelchair path through the backcountry is.
posted by fedward at 1:11 PM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well, the people saying that are jerks. I'm no universal apologist for the National Park Service (they mismanage a lot of public land in DC) but I have found that at the major parks they do attempt to provide some accessibility to major sites, while also providing backcountry experiences to people who desire them and are able to enjoy them.
I think dogs are a similar issue, whether or not they meet the legal definition of a service dog. The fact is that some people may truly need a service dog, or they may not feel comfortable in the park without their dog, or they may want to have their dog around because that companionship is meaningful to them.
There also has to be a consideration for the ranger who has to enforce the rules, though. When one person's companion animal is another person's fake service dog, then the ranger is pressed on the spot into making a judgment about the nature of the relationship between the owner and the dog. On this front the National Park Service is at least consistent: you're allowed leashed dogs on paved trails only. You are not allowed dogs, leashed or unleashed, on wilderness trails in lands managed by NPS. It's a pretty simple rule. I'd argue that failing to accommodate for a service animal on a backcountry trail is about as much of a problem as failing to provide an ADA-compliant wheelchair path through the backcountry is.
posted by fedward at 1:11 PM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
I find that people who can't accept that their dogs aren't welcome in every situation and every location tend to feel entitled in other areas as well.
I have a dog. I love my dog. My dog LOOOOOOOVES to be with us. It's all he wants to do. If we go for a hike with the dog, we choose a park where dogs are allowed and he's never off-leash. If we want to go to a specific park that doesn't allow dogs, he stays home. I literally don't see the point in taking him somewhere he's not welcome.
I also didn't feel entitled to bring my children (when they were small; they're adults now) to restaurants that were clearly not child friendly. We went to kid places or we hired a sitter and went to non-kid places (which didn't happen often because we had no money). Same deal: I literally did not see the point in taking them somewhere they weren't welcome.
It's not anyone else's obligation to make my offspring or my dog, all of whom I chose to have in my life, feel welcomed everywhere at all times.
I'm a rule follower in general though I do tend to rail against authority. I contain multitudes.
posted by cooker girl at 1:13 PM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
I have a dog. I love my dog. My dog LOOOOOOOVES to be with us. It's all he wants to do. If we go for a hike with the dog, we choose a park where dogs are allowed and he's never off-leash. If we want to go to a specific park that doesn't allow dogs, he stays home. I literally don't see the point in taking him somewhere he's not welcome.
I also didn't feel entitled to bring my children (when they were small; they're adults now) to restaurants that were clearly not child friendly. We went to kid places or we hired a sitter and went to non-kid places (which didn't happen often because we had no money). Same deal: I literally did not see the point in taking them somewhere they weren't welcome.
It's not anyone else's obligation to make my offspring or my dog, all of whom I chose to have in my life, feel welcomed everywhere at all times.
I'm a rule follower in general though I do tend to rail against authority. I contain multitudes.
posted by cooker girl at 1:13 PM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
I think dogs are a similar issue, whether or not they meet the legal definition of a service dog. The fact is that some people may truly need a service dog, or they may not feel comfortable in the park without their dog, or they may want to have their dog around because that companionship is meaningful to them. Reducing it to a simple issue of "well, they're just too selfish to think about the impact of their pooch" doesn't do justice to the actual issue at hand.
I think most people here make the allowance for guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, seizure response dogs, etc. These service animals are regulated, specially trained, and licensed.
The problem is that a somewhat gray area has emerged - that of the therapy animal. These are animals that are companion and comfort animals for people with anxiety disorders. While I do not doubt the importance such animals can take for their companion's lives and treatment (tip of hat to Gary Fisher, who was Carrie Fisher's constant companion in the latter part of her life), these animals are largely self-declared, unregulated and aren't necessarily specially trained. There are guidelines, sure, but there is no central licensing and screening agency of the sort that exists for service animals. So the problem is that at the present moment, there is a greater potential for abuse of the "therapy animal" title from people who are indeed trying to take advantage of the situation just to keep their dog with them.
Of course, one way to combat this would be to start requiring therapy animals to be licensed, screened, and trained. However, this would open up a whole can of worms with our health care system, since it's in such poor shape itself already. So I'm not sure that's such a good idea. However, that means that the people trying to cheat still have that avenue open to them, unfortunately.
So ultimately, the probem is not service animals in and of itself, but rather with a few spoilt people trying to bend the rules to get their own way and ruining it for the rest of us. And, hell, that kind of thing seems to be the root of most of the world's problems. (I'm reminded of an SNL skit about "the people who ruined things for everyone else".)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:49 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think most people here make the allowance for guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, seizure response dogs, etc. These service animals are regulated, specially trained, and licensed.
The problem is that a somewhat gray area has emerged - that of the therapy animal. These are animals that are companion and comfort animals for people with anxiety disorders. While I do not doubt the importance such animals can take for their companion's lives and treatment (tip of hat to Gary Fisher, who was Carrie Fisher's constant companion in the latter part of her life), these animals are largely self-declared, unregulated and aren't necessarily specially trained. There are guidelines, sure, but there is no central licensing and screening agency of the sort that exists for service animals. So the problem is that at the present moment, there is a greater potential for abuse of the "therapy animal" title from people who are indeed trying to take advantage of the situation just to keep their dog with them.
Of course, one way to combat this would be to start requiring therapy animals to be licensed, screened, and trained. However, this would open up a whole can of worms with our health care system, since it's in such poor shape itself already. So I'm not sure that's such a good idea. However, that means that the people trying to cheat still have that avenue open to them, unfortunately.
So ultimately, the probem is not service animals in and of itself, but rather with a few spoilt people trying to bend the rules to get their own way and ruining it for the rest of us. And, hell, that kind of thing seems to be the root of most of the world's problems. (I'm reminded of an SNL skit about "the people who ruined things for everyone else".)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:49 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
if your off-leash dog jumps at, licks, or touches me, i can pepper spray it, right?
posted by j_curiouser at 3:21 PM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 3:21 PM on September 18, 2017 [2 favorites]
I love dogs more than anything else on this earth. However, letting your dog off his or her leash anywhere other than a) your own private fenced property or b) a fenced and easily-supervised dog park or c) a designated off-leash area in which you will be able to outrun your dog* is the absolute height of irresponsibility.
Partly because of clowns like j_curiouser, above, but also because you don't know. You don't know what your dog is sniffing at and eating. You don't know what is in that underbrush. You don't know what is in the water. You don't know what that other dog's intentions are. You don't know what might startle or enrage your dog. You. Don't. Know. I don't care how well-trained you think your dog is, or what an amazing and responsible trainer you think you are: you don't know. Not having complete control over your dog marks you in my mind as utterly irresponsible, and it means you don't love your dog at all: it means you are using your dog either as a symbol, or merely for cachet.
To let your dog off the leash in a national park? That is just next level shitbirdism.
*I guarantee you cannot outrun your dog.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:30 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Partly because of clowns like j_curiouser, above, but also because you don't know. You don't know what your dog is sniffing at and eating. You don't know what is in that underbrush. You don't know what is in the water. You don't know what that other dog's intentions are. You don't know what might startle or enrage your dog. You. Don't. Know. I don't care how well-trained you think your dog is, or what an amazing and responsible trainer you think you are: you don't know. Not having complete control over your dog marks you in my mind as utterly irresponsible, and it means you don't love your dog at all: it means you are using your dog either as a symbol, or merely for cachet.
To let your dog off the leash in a national park? That is just next level shitbirdism.
*I guarantee you cannot outrun your dog.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:30 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Hi, it's me, That Guy.
There are three distinct types of services that dogs perform to be classified as service, therapy, or emotional support dogs. (And other types of animal.)
Service dogs are the most protected category. These are dogs that are specifically trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities. They have the most protections under the ADA. If someone claims their dog is a service dog, you may ask them what tasks it's trained to do for them, but you're not supposed to quiz people about their disability or ask them for documentation.
Therapy dogs are dogs that provide emotional support for third parties. These are the dogs that go to visit hospitals and other care facilities. They are in some ways required to be more rigorously trained than service dogs because they have to be pretty much bomb proof to provide emotional support for strangers, including people whose behavior can be unpredictable. They do not have legal protections to be in the same places service dogs can go.
Emotional support dogs provide emotional support for their specific companions. They're not regulated or required to have any other specific skills or even temperament. They do, however, often get exemptions if they've been recommended by a doctor, allowing them to live with their companions in properties that don't allow pets. I'm not sure whether property owners are required to allow them or not, but many do.
I know it's kind of a fussy detail and all, but the confusion about those different roles can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. Service dogs are the only types of dog that might be allowed in otherwise dog restricted parks. (As as Eyebrows pointed out, even they aren't always allowed.)
posted by ernielundquist at 3:42 PM on September 18, 2017
There are three distinct types of services that dogs perform to be classified as service, therapy, or emotional support dogs. (And other types of animal.)
Service dogs are the most protected category. These are dogs that are specifically trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities. They have the most protections under the ADA. If someone claims their dog is a service dog, you may ask them what tasks it's trained to do for them, but you're not supposed to quiz people about their disability or ask them for documentation.
Therapy dogs are dogs that provide emotional support for third parties. These are the dogs that go to visit hospitals and other care facilities. They are in some ways required to be more rigorously trained than service dogs because they have to be pretty much bomb proof to provide emotional support for strangers, including people whose behavior can be unpredictable. They do not have legal protections to be in the same places service dogs can go.
Emotional support dogs provide emotional support for their specific companions. They're not regulated or required to have any other specific skills or even temperament. They do, however, often get exemptions if they've been recommended by a doctor, allowing them to live with their companions in properties that don't allow pets. I'm not sure whether property owners are required to allow them or not, but many do.
I know it's kind of a fussy detail and all, but the confusion about those different roles can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. Service dogs are the only types of dog that might be allowed in otherwise dog restricted parks. (As as Eyebrows pointed out, even they aren't always allowed.)
posted by ernielundquist at 3:42 PM on September 18, 2017
"In Brisbane, Australia, stray cats are now legally classified as restricted biological matter, to be destroyed on sight. It is a crime to feed or shelter them, and the biosecurity authorities are raiding cat shelters and seizing and destroying cats."
Yeah, that's mostly bullshit.
Feral cats in Australia are classified as a "restricted invasive animal" in Queensland (as are feral dogs [including dingos], feral pigs, feral deer, all foxes, all rabbits, all ferrets, etc). This is basically Federal legislation (the Biosecurity Act), but enacted at the state level since there's many traditional/historical differences between states as to what's considered "restricted" or "invasive".
Feral cats (you can read the exact definition here) are, I believe, category 4 in Queensland - it's an offense to move, keep, or feed them. But nobody's "raiding cat shelters and seizing and destroying cats". At least, not legitimate cat shelters or non-feral cats - to pick just one example, my neighbours here in Brisbane recently adopted a kitten from the RSPA that had been dumped on the side of the road several hundred kilometers away, so it was obviously "moved", "kept", and "fed".
Crazy cat ladies who insist on feeding the 100's of ferals they attract? Sure, they get a visit from Biosecurity Qld who tells them to stop it and, IIRC, there's even been a couple of cases that have eventually been taken to court. But the hysterical BS in that comment & link? Not so much…
posted by Pinback at 5:24 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that's mostly bullshit.
Feral cats in Australia are classified as a "restricted invasive animal" in Queensland (as are feral dogs [including dingos], feral pigs, feral deer, all foxes, all rabbits, all ferrets, etc). This is basically Federal legislation (the Biosecurity Act), but enacted at the state level since there's many traditional/historical differences between states as to what's considered "restricted" or "invasive".
Feral cats (you can read the exact definition here) are, I believe, category 4 in Queensland - it's an offense to move, keep, or feed them. But nobody's "raiding cat shelters and seizing and destroying cats". At least, not legitimate cat shelters or non-feral cats - to pick just one example, my neighbours here in Brisbane recently adopted a kitten from the RSPA that had been dumped on the side of the road several hundred kilometers away, so it was obviously "moved", "kept", and "fed".
Crazy cat ladies who insist on feeding the 100's of ferals they attract? Sure, they get a visit from Biosecurity Qld who tells them to stop it and, IIRC, there's even been a couple of cases that have eventually been taken to court. But the hysterical BS in that comment & link? Not so much…
posted by Pinback at 5:24 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
Not having complete control over your dog marks you in my mind as utterly irresponsible, and it means you don't love your dog at all: it means you are using your dog either as a symbol, or merely for cachet.
This is a weird sentiment, to me. I get that people are responsible for the actions of their pets, and you should think real hard about whether it's safe or appropriate to let your dog run free before you let them off the leash. I'm totally on board with that concept.
What I don't understand is the hardline insistence that dogs must be Under Control at all times or else you are a Bad Dog Owner and your dog is a Bad Dog. They're animals, they have free will and agency and stuff. Needing to have 100% control 100% of the time over anything, let alone another sentient (if comparatively less intelligent) being, seems a little obsessive—not to mention ultimately futile. Like, get a stuffed animal if you need an object to control.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:42 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is a weird sentiment, to me. I get that people are responsible for the actions of their pets, and you should think real hard about whether it's safe or appropriate to let your dog run free before you let them off the leash. I'm totally on board with that concept.
What I don't understand is the hardline insistence that dogs must be Under Control at all times or else you are a Bad Dog Owner and your dog is a Bad Dog. They're animals, they have free will and agency and stuff. Needing to have 100% control 100% of the time over anything, let alone another sentient (if comparatively less intelligent) being, seems a little obsessive—not to mention ultimately futile. Like, get a stuffed animal if you need an object to control.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:42 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
I generally love dogs, but when they're outside, either on or off leash, I have seen enough to want nothing to do with them. I don't want dogs sniffing my crotch, I don't want dogs barking at me or other people/dogs and I sure as shit don't want a dog I don't know jumping up on me. I've seen "happy-to-see-you" dogs go from happy to "I smell fear" in a blink, and although I'm mellow to dog owners when they apologize about their dog's poor behavior, I reserve the right to smack the dog with a rock if it does that to me.
I worked in a dog-friendly environment, and one day I was walking to the kitchen and saw a group of people huddled around a woman having one of the most intense panic-attacks I've ever seen. They called the paramedics. I helped to calm her down, it took about 30 minutes, and the paramedics let me do my thing, I guess I was slowing her breathing and getting her to relax. She was hyperventilating and every muscle in her body was stiff as a board.
An unleashed dog walked behind her in the hallway and startled her. She was terrified, and had a bad experience as a child. The dog owner didn't have a clue, they probably thought she was overreacting. If a "happy-to-see-you" dog jumped up on her, I imagine she might've needed a hospital. Not everybody loves your dog the way you do.
posted by Chuffy at 6:02 PM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
I worked in a dog-friendly environment, and one day I was walking to the kitchen and saw a group of people huddled around a woman having one of the most intense panic-attacks I've ever seen. They called the paramedics. I helped to calm her down, it took about 30 minutes, and the paramedics let me do my thing, I guess I was slowing her breathing and getting her to relax. She was hyperventilating and every muscle in her body was stiff as a board.
An unleashed dog walked behind her in the hallway and startled her. She was terrified, and had a bad experience as a child. The dog owner didn't have a clue, they probably thought she was overreacting. If a "happy-to-see-you" dog jumped up on her, I imagine she might've needed a hospital. Not everybody loves your dog the way you do.
posted by Chuffy at 6:02 PM on September 18, 2017 [7 favorites]
I feel like we're also missing the really important point that not everyone is stable on their feet and dogs randomly jumping--even if they're 100% friendly--constitute a very real danger to many people. I have some friends who would probably end up in the hospital if a dog jumped on them.
posted by TwoStride at 6:09 PM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 6:09 PM on September 18, 2017 [11 favorites]
If you're hiking in the wilderness (ostensibly the subject of this post) you should be stable on your feet. Otherwise, it's not safe for you to be there. Hiking is basically advanced walking, balance and stability are prerequisites.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:24 PM on September 18, 2017
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:24 PM on September 18, 2017
What I don't understand is the hardline insistence that dogs must be Under Control at all times or else you are a Bad Dog Owner and your dog is a Bad Dog.
I think you're conflating a couple things and I can't tell if it's willful or just a misunderstanding. There were circumstances where it's A-OK to have your dog off leash described in that very comment, in fact:
a) your own private fenced property or b) a fenced and easily-supervised dog park
What's being described isn't always direct control of the dog: if you can control the circumstances you can then allow your dog to be unleashed and uncontrolled within those circumstances. A shared public space – even if it's backcountry wilderness – is not a controlled circumstance. It is at least irresponsible, and quite possibly dangerous (to you, to others, to your dog, to wildlife, or some combination from that list), to allow your dog to run free.
posted by fedward at 6:29 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
I think you're conflating a couple things and I can't tell if it's willful or just a misunderstanding. There were circumstances where it's A-OK to have your dog off leash described in that very comment, in fact:
a) your own private fenced property or b) a fenced and easily-supervised dog park
What's being described isn't always direct control of the dog: if you can control the circumstances you can then allow your dog to be unleashed and uncontrolled within those circumstances. A shared public space – even if it's backcountry wilderness – is not a controlled circumstance. It is at least irresponsible, and quite possibly dangerous (to you, to others, to your dog, to wildlife, or some combination from that list), to allow your dog to run free.
posted by fedward at 6:29 PM on September 18, 2017 [4 favorites]
I noticed that in this very long thread largely about service dogs, there's been not one poster who has or needs one. So, hi. That'd be me.
I have multiple serious disabilities. They're all invisible, except (in the last few years) my blindness, because the long white cane is a major clue for most* people.
To give a sense of relativity, I've had a guide dogs organization turn me down because my other issues for which I need a service dog are significantly more serious, and they couldn't cross train adequately.
Most of my opinions have been expressed on thread already, so I'll just add one bit, by way of analogy.
Damn near every time I go out, someone grabs my arm, shoulder, or cane with no warning or consent. They're trying to help (in their opinion) guide me somewhere, correct how I walk (hint: I see things by running into them with my cane), etc. It's startling every single fucking time, sometimes dangerously so.
The first few dozen times, I tried to be polite. Now I'm very curt. It's a restraint for me to not want to wrist-throw someone (aikido training), or if they grab my cane, to see how they'd like it if I grabbed their eyeballs. When it's multiple times per outing, from everyone from random strangers to hospital personnel, it gets old really fucking fast.
Now imagine that, but without the obvious cane, with a dog, and with every shopkeep or the like thinking they get to judge how legitimate my disabilities are. That's what l get to look forward to as an improved situation.
For both disabled people and trails (and women and minorities and …), the problem is the simple math of multiple encounters.
What percent of people I encounter when I'm walking around assault me? Pretty tiny, but enough that it's multiple per day.
What percent of dog owners are assholes who let their dogs jump on people without consent or don't pick up shit? Probably small, but enough that it's a problem for parks.
I have no magic solution to this.
Frankly it's tempting to just sue. (Something I'm not afraid to do, and able to — e.g. I won against the TSA under the Rehabilitation Act, which is the fed version of the ADA.) But I lack the spoons to do that every time my rights are violated.
I'm thinking of making a bunch of business card sized "so you just assaulted me" guides to how (not) to interact with blind people. But that too would get old, and potentially expose me to danger if some asshole gets aggressive / violent in response. (And remember again the repeat-odds issue.) Plus I'm just sick of it being my burden to educate people when I'm just trying to get somewhere on time.
So yeah. When discussing this, please remember that for someone like me, it's literally an issue of many thousands of such encounters where my safety is put at risk because of the moral judgments of ignorant strangers.
The bit about how policy has to take into consideration not just the responsible dog owners, but also the ignorant assholes who fuck it up for everyone else, is entirely accurate.
Except for me, you are the analogical dog.
* You might be surprised at how clueless some people are. E.g. recently, I had a Tube (London subway) employee, who was guiding me to a platform, tell me to stop tapping my cane in front of me, and then suddenly leave me alone when I told him to not tell me how to use my cane.
posted by saizai at 7:25 PM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
I have multiple serious disabilities. They're all invisible, except (in the last few years) my blindness, because the long white cane is a major clue for most* people.
To give a sense of relativity, I've had a guide dogs organization turn me down because my other issues for which I need a service dog are significantly more serious, and they couldn't cross train adequately.
Most of my opinions have been expressed on thread already, so I'll just add one bit, by way of analogy.
Damn near every time I go out, someone grabs my arm, shoulder, or cane with no warning or consent. They're trying to help (in their opinion) guide me somewhere, correct how I walk (hint: I see things by running into them with my cane), etc. It's startling every single fucking time, sometimes dangerously so.
The first few dozen times, I tried to be polite. Now I'm very curt. It's a restraint for me to not want to wrist-throw someone (aikido training), or if they grab my cane, to see how they'd like it if I grabbed their eyeballs. When it's multiple times per outing, from everyone from random strangers to hospital personnel, it gets old really fucking fast.
Now imagine that, but without the obvious cane, with a dog, and with every shopkeep or the like thinking they get to judge how legitimate my disabilities are. That's what l get to look forward to as an improved situation.
For both disabled people and trails (and women and minorities and …), the problem is the simple math of multiple encounters.
What percent of people I encounter when I'm walking around assault me? Pretty tiny, but enough that it's multiple per day.
What percent of dog owners are assholes who let their dogs jump on people without consent or don't pick up shit? Probably small, but enough that it's a problem for parks.
I have no magic solution to this.
Frankly it's tempting to just sue. (Something I'm not afraid to do, and able to — e.g. I won against the TSA under the Rehabilitation Act, which is the fed version of the ADA.) But I lack the spoons to do that every time my rights are violated.
I'm thinking of making a bunch of business card sized "so you just assaulted me" guides to how (not) to interact with blind people. But that too would get old, and potentially expose me to danger if some asshole gets aggressive / violent in response. (And remember again the repeat-odds issue.) Plus I'm just sick of it being my burden to educate people when I'm just trying to get somewhere on time.
So yeah. When discussing this, please remember that for someone like me, it's literally an issue of many thousands of such encounters where my safety is put at risk because of the moral judgments of ignorant strangers.
The bit about how policy has to take into consideration not just the responsible dog owners, but also the ignorant assholes who fuck it up for everyone else, is entirely accurate.
Except for me, you are the analogical dog.
* You might be surprised at how clueless some people are. E.g. recently, I had a Tube (London subway) employee, who was guiding me to a platform, tell me to stop tapping my cane in front of me, and then suddenly leave me alone when I told him to not tell me how to use my cane.
posted by saizai at 7:25 PM on September 18, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think most people here make the allowance for guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, seizure response dogs, etc. These service animals are regulated, specially trained, and licensed.
The problem is that a somewhat gray area has emerged - that of the therapy animal. These are animals that are companion and comfort animals for people with anxiety disorders
As you note, people make allowance for dogs involving physical disabilities. These dogs also largely cannot be self-trained, because it is nearly impossible to self-train the behaviors that are needed. But many people are less understanding of psychiatric service dogs, which are specifically trained to perform tasks for people with psychiatric disabilities. The fact of someone with an anxiety disorder requiring a service dog does not make them an "emotional support animal".
I'm most familiar with PTSD-assistive dogs, so I'll go into a few of the tasks that are common for those animals:
As a veteran, I've also gotten to see how much people's ideas about whether service dogs are appropriate differ according to whether they think the disability in question is a "real" disability. Few people, for example, question an identifiable veteran with a PTSD dog, because they think of combat PTSD as a "real" disability. But people do question abuse or rape survivors with PTSD dogs, because they think of those kinds of PTSD as somehow not "worthy" of a service dog. This happens all the time - where people think that someone's psychiatric service dog is just an "emotional support animal" because the person is suffering from depression and suicidality, which are not interpreted as "real" disabilities.
I get that there are real problems to solve around both accommodating people with disabilities that require service dogs and the issue of dog access. But the solution to that is not, as too many do, to treat people with psychiatric disabilities as somehow lesser than those with physical ones.
posted by corb at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
The problem is that a somewhat gray area has emerged - that of the therapy animal. These are animals that are companion and comfort animals for people with anxiety disorders
As you note, people make allowance for dogs involving physical disabilities. These dogs also largely cannot be self-trained, because it is nearly impossible to self-train the behaviors that are needed. But many people are less understanding of psychiatric service dogs, which are specifically trained to perform tasks for people with psychiatric disabilities. The fact of someone with an anxiety disorder requiring a service dog does not make them an "emotional support animal".
I'm most familiar with PTSD-assistive dogs, so I'll go into a few of the tasks that are common for those animals:
1) Find/guide handler to a safe person or placeThese are all really important, useful tasks, but unfortunately, some of these tasks are ones that other people may think fall into 'emotional support' - things like interrupting an anxiety episode with licking or paws on the chest, for example. And many of these are tasks that the handler, personally, can train their dog to do - dogs are wonderful because they want to help you - which means the dog can be legally classified as a psychiatric service dog even without going through years of external training.
2) Interrupt an anxiety episode/panic attack and ground the person having it
3) Wake up a handler who is in the grip of a nightmare
4) Find keys for someone with memory loss
5) Turn on lights in the home
6) Stand in between handler and other people
As a veteran, I've also gotten to see how much people's ideas about whether service dogs are appropriate differ according to whether they think the disability in question is a "real" disability. Few people, for example, question an identifiable veteran with a PTSD dog, because they think of combat PTSD as a "real" disability. But people do question abuse or rape survivors with PTSD dogs, because they think of those kinds of PTSD as somehow not "worthy" of a service dog. This happens all the time - where people think that someone's psychiatric service dog is just an "emotional support animal" because the person is suffering from depression and suicidality, which are not interpreted as "real" disabilities.
I get that there are real problems to solve around both accommodating people with disabilities that require service dogs and the issue of dog access. But the solution to that is not, as too many do, to treat people with psychiatric disabilities as somehow lesser than those with physical ones.
posted by corb at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2017 [9 favorites]
I love dogs more than anything else on this earth. However, letting your dog off his or her leash anywhere other than a) your own private fenced property or b) a fenced and easily-supervised dog park or c) a designated off-leash area in which you will be able to outrun your dog* is the absolute height of irresponsibility.
Spoken like someone who has never heard of working or hunting dogs.
To let your dog off the leash in a national park? That is just next level shitbirdism.
There are 75 areas managed by the National Park Service that allow hunting, many of those allow dogs - for various stages of the evolution from locating to retrieving game.
It's hard for a dog to swim after a duck with a 6' leash attached, is what I'm sayin'. Not to mention dogs that herd sheep or cattle - many NPs allow grazing, too.
Point is, not all National Parks disallow dogs in all places for all reasons at all times.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:11 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
Spoken like someone who has never heard of working or hunting dogs.
To let your dog off the leash in a national park? That is just next level shitbirdism.
There are 75 areas managed by the National Park Service that allow hunting, many of those allow dogs - for various stages of the evolution from locating to retrieving game.
It's hard for a dog to swim after a duck with a 6' leash attached, is what I'm sayin'. Not to mention dogs that herd sheep or cattle - many NPs allow grazing, too.
Point is, not all National Parks disallow dogs in all places for all reasons at all times.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:11 PM on September 18, 2017 [1 favorite]
I get that there are real problems to solve around both accommodating people with disabilities that require service dogs and the issue of dog access. But the solution to that is not, as too many do, to treat people with psychiatric disabilities as somehow lesser than those with physical ones.
If I gave the impression that I considered psychiatric disabilities as "lesser", that ABSOLUTELY was not my intent. Rather, I was pointing out only that at this specific point in time, there is a system in place to regulate, license and train service animals serving people with physical disabilities - but there is no such regulatory body for service animals who serve people with psychiatric disabilities (and even less so for animals serving people with emotional disabilities).
The difference I am pointing to is not a degree of disability in the human, but rather, a degree of training for the dog. And I am pointing to the fact that this lack of training for the emotional support dog is a loophole through which a bunch of irresponsible dog owners are walking.
I'm ALL for service animals to support those with psychiatric or emotional needs. In fact, I'd love to see them be licensed, to STOP the numb-skulls who take advantage of the current situation. The problem is I don't know exactly how this training could be universally applied to create a training system that caters to all emotional and psychiatric disabilities, and there are no doubt some existing support animals who would no doubt be disqualified in the process, to the detriment of their handlers. And I don't want that either.
So....we're stuck.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:58 PM on September 18, 2017
If I gave the impression that I considered psychiatric disabilities as "lesser", that ABSOLUTELY was not my intent. Rather, I was pointing out only that at this specific point in time, there is a system in place to regulate, license and train service animals serving people with physical disabilities - but there is no such regulatory body for service animals who serve people with psychiatric disabilities (and even less so for animals serving people with emotional disabilities).
The difference I am pointing to is not a degree of disability in the human, but rather, a degree of training for the dog. And I am pointing to the fact that this lack of training for the emotional support dog is a loophole through which a bunch of irresponsible dog owners are walking.
I'm ALL for service animals to support those with psychiatric or emotional needs. In fact, I'd love to see them be licensed, to STOP the numb-skulls who take advantage of the current situation. The problem is I don't know exactly how this training could be universally applied to create a training system that caters to all emotional and psychiatric disabilities, and there are no doubt some existing support animals who would no doubt be disqualified in the process, to the detriment of their handlers. And I don't want that either.
So....we're stuck.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:58 PM on September 18, 2017
I am not a dog trainer, but aren't both working dogs and hunting dogs trained to perform specific tasks and to ignore distractions? That seems to be a large part of the difference between service animals and pets. The article was about pets.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:00 PM on September 18, 2017
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:00 PM on September 18, 2017
Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
Please *find out whether the cemetery you want to walk in allows dogs*. The one I visit sometimes, where my father and several old friends and clients are buried, actively encourages dogs. My dog loves walking there. And I love that a creature who is filled with life is near me when I visit what is otherwise a sad place.
Some folks are going a bit overboard in their anti-dogs-walking-just-about-anywhere zeal.
posted by nirblegee at 10:52 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
Please *find out whether the cemetery you want to walk in allows dogs*. The one I visit sometimes, where my father and several old friends and clients are buried, actively encourages dogs. My dog loves walking there. And I love that a creature who is filled with life is near me when I visit what is otherwise a sad place.
Some folks are going a bit overboard in their anti-dogs-walking-just-about-anywhere zeal.
posted by nirblegee at 10:52 PM on September 18, 2017 [3 favorites]
turbid, i don't think you should be calling me a clown. dog attacks have happened to me. and my kid when he was a toddler. and i have a relative with permanent facial scars because a dog (an unleased pet german shepherd) tried to eat half of his face. the owners always say the same thing : sorry, he's always been friendly until this.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:01 PM on September 18, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 11:01 PM on September 18, 2017 [6 favorites]
I am not a dog trainer, but aren't both working dogs and hunting dogs trained to perform specific tasks and to ignore distractions?
Training aint magic. Even with service dogs. I'd be lying if I said my dogs never busted a point, or gave up tracking a bird in favor of a rabbit. Hell, one of my favorite dogs once went out after a duck and brought back a log. And it was the best log. That dog was so proud of himself. * The real shame of a dog's short, short, life is that just as you get them well trained, they are very old.**
Dogs are basically toddlers - a comparison that is even more apt when you consider that I've been bitten by more toddlers than dogs. I fully agree that people should be more conscientious and objective in assessing their dogs skills, and bear those limitations in mind when taking the dog out. But they won't because people gonna people and more people means more peopling.
Secondly, I wasn't responding to the article with my comment. I was responding to that "dogs should never ever be offleash or shitbirdism". Which is a bizarre sentiment. It's beyond bizarre. I fully understand that, especially in cities, unrestrained dogs can be/are an issue. I used to live in a city, and places to let the dogs off-leash and not have to deal with other asshole dogs and their asshole owners were far and few between. So, I do get it.
But I don't hunt in cities, and the sheepherder I mentioned earlier wasn't sheep-herding in a city, and so....
Universalizing that city dog experience is beyond stupid. Not all national parks are the Lincoln Memorial, not all National Forests are Central Park. America is a big, big place and context matters.
I don't live in such a crowded place now, and partly because of the limited opportunities for my dogs - and also the bad people and their bad dogs. Now, my dogs are rarely walked on leash and I love it and they love it. Yes, I worry about snakes. And cliffs. And cactus and coyotes and and and all the other threats. Dogs are toddlers and are sometimes quite stupid. But what - I should lock them in a crate and never let them see sunshine lest they get skin cancer ? They might get shot while hunting, too. We're all gonna die - I do what I can to forestall that - but death and pain will find you. Best to die living.
Back to the point - in more rural areas, the dogs you meet are more used to being off-leash and are less crazy for it. Dogs on the trail here, in nowhereville, are better trained, in general. When they aren't, invariably, they are tourists. Dogs here are also used to people being uninteresting and usually ignore them. Like I said above - people who are lazy with training their dogs are also pretty lazy about taking them very far from town. The further you get from the city, the less consistently crazy things can be.
Point I'm trying to make is - I get that city dogs at city parks are problematic. BTDT-GTTS. All of Metafilter doesn't live in Downtown Manhattan, though. Idiotic blanket pronouncements about dogs offleash are stupid, mostly because they fail to grasp the wondrous variety with which Americans use and work with dogs. You cannot make conclusions about rural life based on your city experiences.
* I miss that idiot dog so much, and its been ~35 years.
** it is some real bullshit that parrots get to live to 90 and dogs maybe get 15.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:06 PM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
Training aint magic. Even with service dogs. I'd be lying if I said my dogs never busted a point, or gave up tracking a bird in favor of a rabbit. Hell, one of my favorite dogs once went out after a duck and brought back a log. And it was the best log. That dog was so proud of himself. * The real shame of a dog's short, short, life is that just as you get them well trained, they are very old.**
Dogs are basically toddlers - a comparison that is even more apt when you consider that I've been bitten by more toddlers than dogs. I fully agree that people should be more conscientious and objective in assessing their dogs skills, and bear those limitations in mind when taking the dog out. But they won't because people gonna people and more people means more peopling.
Secondly, I wasn't responding to the article with my comment. I was responding to that "dogs should never ever be offleash or shitbirdism". Which is a bizarre sentiment. It's beyond bizarre. I fully understand that, especially in cities, unrestrained dogs can be/are an issue. I used to live in a city, and places to let the dogs off-leash and not have to deal with other asshole dogs and their asshole owners were far and few between. So, I do get it.
But I don't hunt in cities, and the sheepherder I mentioned earlier wasn't sheep-herding in a city, and so....
Universalizing that city dog experience is beyond stupid. Not all national parks are the Lincoln Memorial, not all National Forests are Central Park. America is a big, big place and context matters.
I don't live in such a crowded place now, and partly because of the limited opportunities for my dogs - and also the bad people and their bad dogs. Now, my dogs are rarely walked on leash and I love it and they love it. Yes, I worry about snakes. And cliffs. And cactus and coyotes and and and all the other threats. Dogs are toddlers and are sometimes quite stupid. But what - I should lock them in a crate and never let them see sunshine lest they get skin cancer ? They might get shot while hunting, too. We're all gonna die - I do what I can to forestall that - but death and pain will find you. Best to die living.
Back to the point - in more rural areas, the dogs you meet are more used to being off-leash and are less crazy for it. Dogs on the trail here, in nowhereville, are better trained, in general. When they aren't, invariably, they are tourists. Dogs here are also used to people being uninteresting and usually ignore them. Like I said above - people who are lazy with training their dogs are also pretty lazy about taking them very far from town. The further you get from the city, the less consistently crazy things can be.
Point I'm trying to make is - I get that city dogs at city parks are problematic. BTDT-GTTS. All of Metafilter doesn't live in Downtown Manhattan, though. Idiotic blanket pronouncements about dogs offleash are stupid, mostly because they fail to grasp the wondrous variety with which Americans use and work with dogs. You cannot make conclusions about rural life based on your city experiences.
* I miss that idiot dog so much, and its been ~35 years.
** it is some real bullshit that parrots get to live to 90 and dogs maybe get 15.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:06 PM on September 18, 2017 [10 favorites]
If you're hiking in the wilderness (ostensibly the subject of this post) you should be stable on your feet. Otherwise, it's not safe for you to be there. Hiking is basically advanced walking, balance and stability are prerequisites.
Thru hikers of the 2100 mile Appalachian Trail include Bill Irwin who is blind and fell down "thousands of times" on his hike, Roger Poulin who suffers from Usher Syndrome and is blind, deaf and has balance problems, Trevor Thomas who is blind and hikes unassisted using echolocation, Scott Rogers who had a leg amputated above the knee, and Carl Moon who had an amputated foot. They'd all be glad to know you think they should have stayed at home.
posted by peeedro at 11:53 PM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Thru hikers of the 2100 mile Appalachian Trail include Bill Irwin who is blind and fell down "thousands of times" on his hike, Roger Poulin who suffers from Usher Syndrome and is blind, deaf and has balance problems, Trevor Thomas who is blind and hikes unassisted using echolocation, Scott Rogers who had a leg amputated above the knee, and Carl Moon who had an amputated foot. They'd all be glad to know you think they should have stayed at home.
posted by peeedro at 11:53 PM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]
Dogs on the trail here, in nowhereville, are better trained, in general. When they aren't, invariably, they are tourists.
Thing is, you can't have one rule for locals and another for townies. If townie dogs are a problem, then dogs are a problem, and in terms of rules, that means your dogs are a problem.
posted by Dysk at 1:41 AM on September 19, 2017
Thing is, you can't have one rule for locals and another for townies. If townie dogs are a problem, then dogs are a problem, and in terms of rules, that means your dogs are a problem.
posted by Dysk at 1:41 AM on September 19, 2017
But these are both cases where people just don't get it that the wilderness has its own rules. Wildlife isn't like it is in Disney, it could either eat you or try to fuck you up if you keep it from eating. Climbing on wet rocks isn't like the rock-climbing wall at the gym - there aren't mats to cushion you. Mother bears will not take kindly to you trying to pet their cubs. Your dog's shit has a different bacterial profile than the shit that's evolved to be in this woods and it could contaminate things. Blasting "Country Grammar" in your campsite at midnight not only keeps other campers awake, it keeps the surrounding muskrats from hearing each others' mating calls or whatever.
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
Another shill for Big Nature. Pepsi Green much?
posted by Samizdata at 5:00 AM on September 19, 2017
Humans need to realize we are part of nature, rather than the masters of nature.
Another shill for Big Nature. Pepsi Green much?
posted by Samizdata at 5:00 AM on September 19, 2017
there is a system in place to regulate, license and train service animals serving people with physical disabilities
But there really isn't. Not a central one. There are organizations such as The Seeing Eye that train and certify service dogs, but there's no central registry, there are no universally recognized identification papers people could show, no official vest, nothing. Service dogs are just dogs that perform specific tasks for users whose disabilities affect their ability to do things. And there is no clear list of eligible disabilities, either, at least as far as I know, and nothing excluding psychological disabilities.
If you're a park ranger or an employee of a business with a no pets policy and someone says their dog is a service animal, you can ask them what tasks it performs for them, but that's it. You are not allowed to card them or ask for papers, because there are no official IDs or papers, and you are not allowed to grill them about their disability. (Also, though, you can kick a service dog out if that individual dog is aggressive or otherwise disruptive, which would include jumping on people.)
This is part of why service dog fraud is a problem now, and it's part of the reason that making it a crime (which my state is doing) is going to be difficult.
posted by ernielundquist at 6:24 AM on September 19, 2017 [4 favorites]
But there really isn't. Not a central one. There are organizations such as The Seeing Eye that train and certify service dogs, but there's no central registry, there are no universally recognized identification papers people could show, no official vest, nothing. Service dogs are just dogs that perform specific tasks for users whose disabilities affect their ability to do things. And there is no clear list of eligible disabilities, either, at least as far as I know, and nothing excluding psychological disabilities.
If you're a park ranger or an employee of a business with a no pets policy and someone says their dog is a service animal, you can ask them what tasks it performs for them, but that's it. You are not allowed to card them or ask for papers, because there are no official IDs or papers, and you are not allowed to grill them about their disability. (Also, though, you can kick a service dog out if that individual dog is aggressive or otherwise disruptive, which would include jumping on people.)
This is part of why service dog fraud is a problem now, and it's part of the reason that making it a crime (which my state is doing) is going to be difficult.
posted by ernielundquist at 6:24 AM on September 19, 2017 [4 favorites]
I'm ALL for service animals to support those with psychiatric or emotional needs. In fact, I'd love to see them be licensed, to STOP the numb-skulls who take advantage of the current situation. The problem is I don't know exactly how this training could be universally applied to create a training system that caters to all emotional and psychiatric disabilities.
I'm glad to hear that, and I apologize if I painted with too broad a brush - I'm a bit sensitive on the subject, as someone who is recommended a service dog, but doesn't have the 40K to drop on the best training for a temperament-screened doggo.
I think there is an answer, but I'm not sure it's one that most people are willing to accept. You don't need a system of licensing - as ernielundquist notes, there isn't actually one even for physical disability service dogs, and as you note, it would be hard to do. But the thing is - most people who need service dogs would LOVE to receive one of those ideal, great, expensive dogs. If you are looking for a way to lower the amount of poorly-trained service dogs out and about in the world, the easiest way to do it without compromising any of your values or causing negative impact on people with disabilities is simply to require that service dogs be provided by insurance like any other necessary medical device. And then to ensure that insurance companies don't skimp on the training, to make insurance companies liable for any damage that an insurance-provided service dog may do, just like any other defective medical device.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure that the reason most people tolerate service dogs is because they are so rare. Going about my day and seeing hundreds of people, it's still uncommon to see a service dog. But if you have insurance-provided psychiatric service dogs, you're going to have a lot more service dogs around in daily life. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that 9 million Americans, or about 4% of the population, suffer from mental illness severe enough to be limiting in major life activities, which is the standard for disability.
So imagine that one in 20 people you see, everywhere, have service dogs. Personally, I think it would be wonderful - but I'm not sure the American public is ready to be dealing with that level of dog in public space even if the dogs are mostly gorgeously behaved.
posted by corb at 6:39 AM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm glad to hear that, and I apologize if I painted with too broad a brush - I'm a bit sensitive on the subject, as someone who is recommended a service dog, but doesn't have the 40K to drop on the best training for a temperament-screened doggo.
I think there is an answer, but I'm not sure it's one that most people are willing to accept. You don't need a system of licensing - as ernielundquist notes, there isn't actually one even for physical disability service dogs, and as you note, it would be hard to do. But the thing is - most people who need service dogs would LOVE to receive one of those ideal, great, expensive dogs. If you are looking for a way to lower the amount of poorly-trained service dogs out and about in the world, the easiest way to do it without compromising any of your values or causing negative impact on people with disabilities is simply to require that service dogs be provided by insurance like any other necessary medical device. And then to ensure that insurance companies don't skimp on the training, to make insurance companies liable for any damage that an insurance-provided service dog may do, just like any other defective medical device.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure that the reason most people tolerate service dogs is because they are so rare. Going about my day and seeing hundreds of people, it's still uncommon to see a service dog. But if you have insurance-provided psychiatric service dogs, you're going to have a lot more service dogs around in daily life. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that 9 million Americans, or about 4% of the population, suffer from mental illness severe enough to be limiting in major life activities, which is the standard for disability.
So imagine that one in 20 people you see, everywhere, have service dogs. Personally, I think it would be wonderful - but I'm not sure the American public is ready to be dealing with that level of dog in public space even if the dogs are mostly gorgeously behaved.
posted by corb at 6:39 AM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
I will say though that specifically for hiking and backpacking, I think most of the reasonable concerns could be managed by a combination of marking which trails were specifically unsafe for dogs - trails with scrambles, trails with ladders, narrow trails on cliff faces, etc - and requiring people to pack out their dog's poop. Most backpacking trails I've been on already require you to pack out your trash, and I wouldn't think it was too much to ask to pack out dog poop as well.
posted by corb at 6:43 AM on September 19, 2017
posted by corb at 6:43 AM on September 19, 2017
Pogo_Fuzzybutt, I think you're responding at least in part to me.
I will freely acknowledge that hunting (in an appropriate area, with a trained dog) is another instance where it would make sense to have a dog off leash, but again, I think it comes down to the point I was making about controlled circumstances. You probably don't go bird hunting in a place where there's known danger from bears or other big game, and the other people you might encounter on a hunt also have an expectation that there will be dogs, because that's how it's done. That said, I have a comment and a question:
in more rural areas, the dogs you meet are more used to being off-leash and are less crazy for it. Dogs on the trail here, in nowhereville, are better trained, in general.
So, I grew up in Oklahoma, and my memory of dogs in Oklahoma does not agree with this assessment. As a kid I was knocked over by "friendly" dogs at least a couple times. From your experience you can extrapolate neither that everybody in a more spacious area has a dog that's well behaved (on or off leash, for that matter), nor that you know how other people and/or other dogs will behave when they encounter your Good Dog running towards them. You may think your dog is well enough behaved, and you may think he's comfortable enough in his surroundings that he won't do anything to harm any people or animals, but strangers can't expect that.
There are 75 areas managed by the National Park Service that allow hunting, many of those allow dogs - for various stages of the evolution from locating to retrieving game.
True, and a point I glossed over because I wasn't thinking of the preserves managed by NPS that allow that sort of use. Are you arguing, however, that the fact that some places managed by NPS allow dogs off leash means that the rest of them should do that too? I really can't tell where you're coming down on that line. Do you agree that there are some places where people shouldn't be taking dogs?
posted by fedward at 7:13 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
I will freely acknowledge that hunting (in an appropriate area, with a trained dog) is another instance where it would make sense to have a dog off leash, but again, I think it comes down to the point I was making about controlled circumstances. You probably don't go bird hunting in a place where there's known danger from bears or other big game, and the other people you might encounter on a hunt also have an expectation that there will be dogs, because that's how it's done. That said, I have a comment and a question:
in more rural areas, the dogs you meet are more used to being off-leash and are less crazy for it. Dogs on the trail here, in nowhereville, are better trained, in general.
So, I grew up in Oklahoma, and my memory of dogs in Oklahoma does not agree with this assessment. As a kid I was knocked over by "friendly" dogs at least a couple times. From your experience you can extrapolate neither that everybody in a more spacious area has a dog that's well behaved (on or off leash, for that matter), nor that you know how other people and/or other dogs will behave when they encounter your Good Dog running towards them. You may think your dog is well enough behaved, and you may think he's comfortable enough in his surroundings that he won't do anything to harm any people or animals, but strangers can't expect that.
There are 75 areas managed by the National Park Service that allow hunting, many of those allow dogs - for various stages of the evolution from locating to retrieving game.
True, and a point I glossed over because I wasn't thinking of the preserves managed by NPS that allow that sort of use. Are you arguing, however, that the fact that some places managed by NPS allow dogs off leash means that the rest of them should do that too? I really can't tell where you're coming down on that line. Do you agree that there are some places where people shouldn't be taking dogs?
posted by fedward at 7:13 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
So imagine that one in 20 people you see, everywhere, have service dogs.
There's a pretty big leap from '4% of Americans have a mental illness that would qualify as a disability' to 'they would all benefit from and want a service dog'. Like, I understand that a lot of people think dogs are great and all, but they can't solve all problems for all people.
posted by Dysk at 7:33 AM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
There's a pretty big leap from '4% of Americans have a mental illness that would qualify as a disability' to 'they would all benefit from and want a service dog'. Like, I understand that a lot of people think dogs are great and all, but they can't solve all problems for all people.
posted by Dysk at 7:33 AM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
And like, it shouldn't be as simple as "you have a recognised disability so you get to have a dog with you at all times" - the dog should provide a meaningful service to the owner to qualify as a service dog. Sure, a lot of what is meaningful isn't necessarily obvious or visible, but it's not like having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself - it should be (as it at least nominally is) based around legitimate needs.
posted by Dysk at 7:36 AM on September 19, 2017
posted by Dysk at 7:36 AM on September 19, 2017
On this front the National Park Service is at least consistent: you're allowed leashed dogs on paved trails only. You are not allowed dogs, leashed or unleashed, on wilderness trails in lands managed by NPS. It's a pretty simple rule. I'd argue that failing to accommodate for a service animal on a backcountry trail is about as much of a problem as failing to provide an ADA-compliant wheelchair path through the backcountry is.
This is incorrect. National Park visitors may bring a service dog into backcountry areas, sometimes a permit is required (examples: Yellowstone, Glacier), sometimes a check-in with rangers is required. This permit or check-in includes warnings to the added risks of bringing a service dog into backcountry areas. Like I pointed out above, disabled people hike too.
The National Park Service policies are a bit of an outlier, they do not fall under the ADA. They do fall under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but have decided to voluntarily align their policies with the ADA's rules. But I can't even guess what reasonable accommodations means to an NPS employee who might require a service animal.
And leave no trace means packing out your dog waste: "Service animal fecal matter must be picked up and disposed of properly. Fecal matter should be disposed of in a trash receptacle, toilet, pit toilet, or if none of those are accessible (such as in the backcountry) it should be buried in a cat hole dug a minimum of 6 inches deep and a 200 feet from water sources, campsites or trails."
posted by peeedro at 7:43 AM on September 19, 2017 [5 favorites]
This is incorrect. National Park visitors may bring a service dog into backcountry areas, sometimes a permit is required (examples: Yellowstone, Glacier), sometimes a check-in with rangers is required. This permit or check-in includes warnings to the added risks of bringing a service dog into backcountry areas. Like I pointed out above, disabled people hike too.
The National Park Service policies are a bit of an outlier, they do not fall under the ADA. They do fall under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but have decided to voluntarily align their policies with the ADA's rules. But I can't even guess what reasonable accommodations means to an NPS employee who might require a service animal.
And leave no trace means packing out your dog waste: "Service animal fecal matter must be picked up and disposed of properly. Fecal matter should be disposed of in a trash receptacle, toilet, pit toilet, or if none of those are accessible (such as in the backcountry) it should be buried in a cat hole dug a minimum of 6 inches deep and a 200 feet from water sources, campsites or trails."
posted by peeedro at 7:43 AM on September 19, 2017 [5 favorites]
Happy to find out I'm wrong about that, peeedro. That said:
Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely to provide comfort or emotional support ("therapy animals"), are considered pets.
In light of this thread, that bit on the Yellowstone page about service animals is, uh, yeah.
posted by fedward at 8:09 AM on September 19, 2017
Dogs that are not trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including dogs that are used purely to provide comfort or emotional support ("therapy animals"), are considered pets.
In light of this thread, that bit on the Yellowstone page about service animals is, uh, yeah.
posted by fedward at 8:09 AM on September 19, 2017
Also sorta relevant, Gracie the Bark Ranger has a nice instragram feed.
posted by peeedro at 8:15 AM on September 19, 2017
posted by peeedro at 8:15 AM on September 19, 2017
it's not like having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself
It should be. Probably only a smallish minority of people need a service dog, but I'd guess that most pets are emotional support animals in a very real sense. People who are able to find housing where they can keep pets don't usually bother getting a doctor's recommendation, but pets are essential to a lot of people's mental health.
A lot of people will refuse to evacuate during natural disasters if they can't bring their pets. Many choose homelessness over housing where their pets are prohibited. Accommodating pets is a huge obstacle in a lot of domestic violence cases, which is why some animal shelters provide temporary housing for the pets of people who are staying in domestic shelters. It's a very common thing for people to make fundamental sacrifices to their way of living and their own safety to ensure that they can stay with their pets.
Most people with pets don't need a service animal for daily tasks like shopping, working, and hiking, but they do need them to be there when they get home. So I'd be 100% on board with just considering pets to be emotional support animals by default, or at least allowing people to self prescribe them. You shouldn't have to run around trying to find a doctor to confirm that you need a pet for your mental health. If you believe you need a pet and you can care for it, you should have a legal right to reasonable accommodations for that.
We should have fairly strict requirements for service dogs, though, because society couldn't well accommodate everyone bringing their emotional support animals everywhere.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:01 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
It should be. Probably only a smallish minority of people need a service dog, but I'd guess that most pets are emotional support animals in a very real sense. People who are able to find housing where they can keep pets don't usually bother getting a doctor's recommendation, but pets are essential to a lot of people's mental health.
A lot of people will refuse to evacuate during natural disasters if they can't bring their pets. Many choose homelessness over housing where their pets are prohibited. Accommodating pets is a huge obstacle in a lot of domestic violence cases, which is why some animal shelters provide temporary housing for the pets of people who are staying in domestic shelters. It's a very common thing for people to make fundamental sacrifices to their way of living and their own safety to ensure that they can stay with their pets.
Most people with pets don't need a service animal for daily tasks like shopping, working, and hiking, but they do need them to be there when they get home. So I'd be 100% on board with just considering pets to be emotional support animals by default, or at least allowing people to self prescribe them. You shouldn't have to run around trying to find a doctor to confirm that you need a pet for your mental health. If you believe you need a pet and you can care for it, you should have a legal right to reasonable accommodations for that.
We should have fairly strict requirements for service dogs, though, because society couldn't well accommodate everyone bringing their emotional support animals everywhere.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:01 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ernie, the thing is that there are people who are saying they should be allowed to bring their dogs shopping, working, and hiking, because they say that they are "emotional support animals" and that therefore this makes them equivalent to service animals.
I mean, I get what you're saying about the emotional benefits of pets, but you're expanding the definition of a term that is already being stretched.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:25 AM on September 19, 2017 [7 favorites]
I mean, I get what you're saying about the emotional benefits of pets, but you're expanding the definition of a term that is already being stretched.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:25 AM on September 19, 2017 [7 favorites]
graveyards are for the kind of people that do.
Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
Historically graveyards were used as picnic grounds and public parks. It is only in recent history that they have become a silent and lifeless space.
posted by srboisvert at 10:41 AM on September 19, 2017 [7 favorites]
Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
Historically graveyards were used as picnic grounds and public parks. It is only in recent history that they have become a silent and lifeless space.
posted by srboisvert at 10:41 AM on September 19, 2017 [7 favorites]
Not really getting why you think you need to explain that to me. I'm well aware that people abuse and misunderstand the difference between service, emotional support, and therapy animals. I'm responding to someone saying that people shouldn't have a right to keep a pet. I strongly believe they do, so I won't let that slide as though it's a given.
And at least some of the people who are committing service dog fraud by calling their emotional support animals service animals don't know there's a difference. There are whole things all over the internet that muddy up the distinctions and the vagueness of the laws in order to sell vests and ID cards and certifications. Some people are being knowingly deceptive, of course, but a whole lot of people I've talked to literally don't know that the different types of support animals have different standards and accommodations. Just increasing public awareness of those distinctions would go a long way toward resolving the problem.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
And at least some of the people who are committing service dog fraud by calling their emotional support animals service animals don't know there's a difference. There are whole things all over the internet that muddy up the distinctions and the vagueness of the laws in order to sell vests and ID cards and certifications. Some people are being knowingly deceptive, of course, but a whole lot of people I've talked to literally don't know that the different types of support animals have different standards and accommodations. Just increasing public awareness of those distinctions would go a long way toward resolving the problem.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:34 AM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
a whole lot of people I've talked to literally don't know that the different types of support animals have different standards and accommodations.
But the problem here is that there's the legal definition of what it takes to be a service animal - which means training for any assistive tasks that assist a person with a disability - and what people think of when they think of service animals, which is that expensive, organization-trained, ideal, perfect-temperment service animal.
Given that there is no fixed number or difficulty of assistive tasks that service dogs need to be trained to do, no regulatory body, and no universal standards, it feels actually like a lot of what people feel is "committing service dog fraud by calling their emotional support animals service animals" is actually no such thing, as most of the animals in question would fit under the legal requirements for a service dog.
And I wonder, again, how much of the tolerance for service dogs is because the things everyone thinks of as "real" service dogs are so vanishingly rare. If everyone who now has an "emotional support animal" - people who all have documented disabilities - instead had a beautifully trained service dog who fit the ideal - let's say they were all Golden Labs - do you think you would feel good or bad? Would that be a successful win condition? Or is the real problem the amount of dogs, not the provenance?
posted by corb at 12:21 PM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
But the problem here is that there's the legal definition of what it takes to be a service animal - which means training for any assistive tasks that assist a person with a disability - and what people think of when they think of service animals, which is that expensive, organization-trained, ideal, perfect-temperment service animal.
Given that there is no fixed number or difficulty of assistive tasks that service dogs need to be trained to do, no regulatory body, and no universal standards, it feels actually like a lot of what people feel is "committing service dog fraud by calling their emotional support animals service animals" is actually no such thing, as most of the animals in question would fit under the legal requirements for a service dog.
And I wonder, again, how much of the tolerance for service dogs is because the things everyone thinks of as "real" service dogs are so vanishingly rare. If everyone who now has an "emotional support animal" - people who all have documented disabilities - instead had a beautifully trained service dog who fit the ideal - let's say they were all Golden Labs - do you think you would feel good or bad? Would that be a successful win condition? Or is the real problem the amount of dogs, not the provenance?
posted by corb at 12:21 PM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
So I'd be 100% on board with just considering pets to be emotional support animals by default, or at least allowing people to self prescribe them. You shouldn't have to run around trying to find a doctor to confirm that you need a pet for your mental health. If you believe you need a pet and you can care for it, you should have a legal right to reasonable accommodations for that.
I actually agree with this to a point - if all housing allowed pets (with reasonable restrictions such as number, not a public nuisance or hazard, and making sure they are cared for), there would be fewer homeless pets euthanized in shelters. I love pets, and I think they are good for people.
But I am a cat person. And I come at this from a cat owner's perspective, and knowing a couple of people with emotional support cats. The one I know best is a well-behaved, well-cared-for and lovable animal - but, being a cat, she doesn't go out in public except to the vet's in a carrier. Cats are so different from dogs in that respect - owners don't take their cats hiking or to cat parks, most cats don't interact exuberantly with strangers like many dogs do, a cat is more likely to hide rather than aggressively attack a human unless that human goes out of their way to corner it, etc. There's plenty of pearl-clutching about wildlife and DISEASES OMG among cat-haters, but, on the whole, pet cats (as opposed to ferals) aren't in your face like dogs are.
Now with service dogs and emotional support dogs - I really don't care that people have those dogs. I don't even care that they take them out in public. I do care that some owners don't seem to think that their dogs need to behave themselves. I really do not think it's a big insurmountable Ask for people to train their dogs, see that they behave themselves and don't harm other people, pets, or wildlife. I really, really don't. Why do some dog owners think that yes, this is a really big Ask, that their dog should, in fact, be free to crap everywhere, knock people down, and attack other pets and wildlife and even people? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether that is a pet or a service dog or a comfort dog or what - control your damn dog! Do you think it's cyoot and adorbs if your human child went up to a stranger and kicked him in the shin?
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 12:45 PM on September 19, 2017 [6 favorites]
I actually agree with this to a point - if all housing allowed pets (with reasonable restrictions such as number, not a public nuisance or hazard, and making sure they are cared for), there would be fewer homeless pets euthanized in shelters. I love pets, and I think they are good for people.
But I am a cat person. And I come at this from a cat owner's perspective, and knowing a couple of people with emotional support cats. The one I know best is a well-behaved, well-cared-for and lovable animal - but, being a cat, she doesn't go out in public except to the vet's in a carrier. Cats are so different from dogs in that respect - owners don't take their cats hiking or to cat parks, most cats don't interact exuberantly with strangers like many dogs do, a cat is more likely to hide rather than aggressively attack a human unless that human goes out of their way to corner it, etc. There's plenty of pearl-clutching about wildlife and DISEASES OMG among cat-haters, but, on the whole, pet cats (as opposed to ferals) aren't in your face like dogs are.
Now with service dogs and emotional support dogs - I really don't care that people have those dogs. I don't even care that they take them out in public. I do care that some owners don't seem to think that their dogs need to behave themselves. I really do not think it's a big insurmountable Ask for people to train their dogs, see that they behave themselves and don't harm other people, pets, or wildlife. I really, really don't. Why do some dog owners think that yes, this is a really big Ask, that their dog should, in fact, be free to crap everywhere, knock people down, and attack other pets and wildlife and even people? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether that is a pet or a service dog or a comfort dog or what - control your damn dog! Do you think it's cyoot and adorbs if your human child went up to a stranger and kicked him in the shin?
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 12:45 PM on September 19, 2017 [6 favorites]
Not really getting why you think you need to explain that to me. I'm well aware that people abuse and misunderstand the difference between service, emotional support, and therapy animals. I'm responding to someone saying that people shouldn't have a right to keep a pet. I strongly believe they do, so I won't let that slide as though it's a given.
Okay, then I'm confused - I don't recall anyone in here saying that people shouldn't have the right to keep a pet (at least not in any serious way), and moreover, are you talking about pets, or emotional support animals?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:48 PM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
Okay, then I'm confused - I don't recall anyone in here saying that people shouldn't have the right to keep a pet (at least not in any serious way), and moreover, are you talking about pets, or emotional support animals?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:48 PM on September 19, 2017 [2 favorites]
I just got back from several national parks* yesterday. I don't remember seeing any problematic dogs on trails, although there were some yappers in the campgrounds. I saw lots of problematic people, including a couple who were walking towards bison (they were still 100 feet away but if they got gored they'd deserve it). I thought people went into nature in part to get away from other people, but I was wrong. Going by the amount and behavior of tourists, Yellowstone was practically Disney but with bears and wolves. (National forests and state parks were much better, btw.)
I don't think any domesticated animals should be allowed. I don't understand why horses are allowed on trails that are also for hikers. Why don't the riders have to pick up horse poop? The last trail I was on was littered with it.
*Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, Rocky Mountain
posted by AFABulous at 2:27 PM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't think any domesticated animals should be allowed. I don't understand why horses are allowed on trails that are also for hikers. Why don't the riders have to pick up horse poop? The last trail I was on was littered with it.
*Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, Rocky Mountain
posted by AFABulous at 2:27 PM on September 19, 2017 [1 favorite]
if i had to name one favorite thing about mountain biking, it's bombing down a trail and running full speed through a mound of manure 'cause the patricians gotta ride their horses somewhere
posted by indubitable at 3:03 PM on September 19, 2017
posted by indubitable at 3:03 PM on September 19, 2017
Okay, then I'm confused - I don't recall anyone in here saying that people shouldn't have the right to keep a pet (at least not in any serious way), and moreover, are you talking about pets, or emotional support animals?
I quoted it. It was part of a post where someone said, "it's not like having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself," and while I agree with the need to distinguish between service animals vs. non service animals in terms of public accommodations, I strongly disagree with that part right there: I think that having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself.
And I'm saying that I would be in favor of making emotional support animal status closer to the default, so that people who need pets for emotional support wouldn't have to get letters and fight for reasonable accommodations. Many pets are already serving that role, just without the official status.
Service dog status is a separate thing with concrete requirements and exemptions, and that should stay mostly the way it is. People who are trying to pass their emotional support animals and/or pets off as service animals are often just being misinformed by scammy websites. They don't think that emotional support animals should have the same rights as service animals. They think they already do, and that's hurting the cause for both.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:06 PM on September 19, 2017
I quoted it. It was part of a post where someone said, "it's not like having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself," and while I agree with the need to distinguish between service animals vs. non service animals in terms of public accommodations, I strongly disagree with that part right there: I think that having a dog should be a God-given right in and of itself.
And I'm saying that I would be in favor of making emotional support animal status closer to the default, so that people who need pets for emotional support wouldn't have to get letters and fight for reasonable accommodations. Many pets are already serving that role, just without the official status.
Service dog status is a separate thing with concrete requirements and exemptions, and that should stay mostly the way it is. People who are trying to pass their emotional support animals and/or pets off as service animals are often just being misinformed by scammy websites. They don't think that emotional support animals should have the same rights as service animals. They think they already do, and that's hurting the cause for both.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:06 PM on September 19, 2017
I want the reasonable accommodation not to have to live next to some asshole's yappy dog just because they feel emotionally attached to it. "Emotional support animals" has gotten ridiculous - there's someone in my social circle with an ESA hedgehog for fuck's sake. I love my cats and I get depressed and anxious sometimes, but I don't have the right to inflict them on people.
posted by AFABulous at 3:44 PM on September 19, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by AFABulous at 3:44 PM on September 19, 2017 [3 favorites]
Why don't the riders have to pick up horse poop? The last trail I was on was littered with it.
The short answer is because horse use is a traditional recreational activity and the horse lobby is very effective. The longer answer is that scientists and land managers have found horse manure to be mostly benign to the environment. Horse horse guts do not significantly contain cryptosporidium, E. coli 0157:H7, giardia, or salmonella so there is minimal concern for human and wildlife heath. Horse manure is not particularly effective at spreading invasive weed seeds. Compared to other livestock and omnivores like humans and dogs, horse digestion is rather efficient, hot, and dry so horse nuggets break down quickly and deposit a minimal amount of nutrients in the soil and surface water. There are guides of best practices(pdf) for backcountry horse and pack animal use that responsible equestrian trail users should adhere to minimize their impact.
posted by peeedro at 4:44 PM on September 19, 2017 [8 favorites]
The short answer is because horse use is a traditional recreational activity and the horse lobby is very effective. The longer answer is that scientists and land managers have found horse manure to be mostly benign to the environment. Horse horse guts do not significantly contain cryptosporidium, E. coli 0157:H7, giardia, or salmonella so there is minimal concern for human and wildlife heath. Horse manure is not particularly effective at spreading invasive weed seeds. Compared to other livestock and omnivores like humans and dogs, horse digestion is rather efficient, hot, and dry so horse nuggets break down quickly and deposit a minimal amount of nutrients in the soil and surface water. There are guides of best practices(pdf) for backcountry horse and pack animal use that responsible equestrian trail users should adhere to minimize their impact.
posted by peeedro at 4:44 PM on September 19, 2017 [8 favorites]
I have to say, as someone who lives with a pet, "emotional support animal" does sound a lot like a synonym for "pet". Pets can provide great emotional support. Doesn't mean you necessarily need to take them everywhere. If you have an illness that means you do, you need a service animal, not a pet.
posted by Dysk at 4:47 PM on September 19, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:47 PM on September 19, 2017 [4 favorites]
Damn I've learned a lot of new things from this thread. Thanks, y'all.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on September 19, 2017
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on September 19, 2017
if i had to name one favorite thing about mountain biking, it's bombing down a trail and running full speed through a mound of manure 'cause the patricians gotta ride their horses somewhereEquites, surely.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 8:02 PM on September 19, 2017
Mod note: A couple deleted. Let's maybe not get into philosophical arguments about how dogs should be free to kill or injure themselves, or similar.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on September 20, 2017
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on September 20, 2017
> GIS "piss on his grave" yields more than 26,000 results. There is a reason for this. You may not care where dogs pee, and I don't care either, but graveyards are for the kind of people that do. Please don't walk your dog in the cemetery.
That use of "piss on his grave" is referring to a deliberate insult by a human to another human. Yes, it is rude to let your dog urinate directly on gravestones, the same way you should not let them piss on flowerbeds or someone's front steps. And if you encounter another person in the cemetery who is visiting a grave while you walk your dog, you obviously respectfully give them a wide berth.
But in a graveyard, just as in any other park, it's fine for a dog to relieve itself on the grassy edge of a path, or on open ground between monuments. Graveyards as a piece of property aren't inherently befouled by animal urine, after all, we're not concerned about the urine from squirrels, foxes, or groundhogs being disrespectful (damage to sandstone and marble monuments is obviously a different issue.)
Graveyards are for people who wish to visit graveyards. There are certainly some extra courtesy rules because we're collectively memorializing the dead, but the land itself is not a perpetual funeral.
/I volunteer for a large historic cemetery. And visit pretty much any cemetery on my path.
posted by desuetude at 7:44 AM on September 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
That use of "piss on his grave" is referring to a deliberate insult by a human to another human. Yes, it is rude to let your dog urinate directly on gravestones, the same way you should not let them piss on flowerbeds or someone's front steps. And if you encounter another person in the cemetery who is visiting a grave while you walk your dog, you obviously respectfully give them a wide berth.
But in a graveyard, just as in any other park, it's fine for a dog to relieve itself on the grassy edge of a path, or on open ground between monuments. Graveyards as a piece of property aren't inherently befouled by animal urine, after all, we're not concerned about the urine from squirrels, foxes, or groundhogs being disrespectful (damage to sandstone and marble monuments is obviously a different issue.)
Graveyards are for people who wish to visit graveyards. There are certainly some extra courtesy rules because we're collectively memorializing the dead, but the land itself is not a perpetual funeral.
/I volunteer for a large historic cemetery. And visit pretty much any cemetery on my path.
posted by desuetude at 7:44 AM on September 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
If anyone that's still paying attention is a person that likes to let their dog run around off leash not in a designated area, and the people above have not convinced you that this is a bad idea, I have another data point to add.
Can you control your off-leash dog when it sees a cat? I walk my cat on a leash. He does not like dogs. So if there are other dogs around on leashes I can usually pull him to the side and he will crouch down and "hide" and we wait for the dog to pass. If the dog is not on a leash, it better stay away from my cat or it's going to get scratched. And also probably my leg because my cat is terrified. I don't care if your dog likes cats. (hello person that lives in my apartment complex and for some reason thinks your dog and my cat can be friends. They can't.) Dogs being off leash anywhere they aren't supposed to be makes it harder for everyone else.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:40 AM on September 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
Can you control your off-leash dog when it sees a cat? I walk my cat on a leash. He does not like dogs. So if there are other dogs around on leashes I can usually pull him to the side and he will crouch down and "hide" and we wait for the dog to pass. If the dog is not on a leash, it better stay away from my cat or it's going to get scratched. And also probably my leg because my cat is terrified. I don't care if your dog likes cats. (hello person that lives in my apartment complex and for some reason thinks your dog and my cat can be friends. They can't.) Dogs being off leash anywhere they aren't supposed to be makes it harder for everyone else.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:40 AM on September 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
...dogs must be Under Control at all times or else you are a Bad Dog Owner and your dog is a Bad Dog
Nope, never said the dog was bad. No such thing.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:44 PM on September 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
Nope, never said the dog was bad. No such thing.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:44 PM on September 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
Few additions to my previous comment.
1. corb, sorry for omitting you when saying there were no other service dog needers/havers on thread. Glad to see your comments.
2. Service dogs, no matter what their task, generally cannot perform that task if they are distracted by other people. An implicit task for all service dogs is to ignore distractors like other people, food on the ground, etc., while they are "on the job" (usually equivalent to "vest on" — vest off meaning they get to just be dogs and go play etc).
Service & guide dog orgs are universally pretty harsh about this — never touch or even interact with a service dog without explicit owner permission, expect permission to be denied when they're on the job, owners will not allow dogs to eat food from anyone but themselves, etc. You might wonder why. Frankly, I did.
Answer is simple. If I have a guide dog, and the dog gets distracted by some food on the crosswalk or someone kneeling to pet the nice dog or whatever, I am at risk for getting hit by a car.
If I have a service dog, and any of those happen, then in the case of my particular conditions, I am at risk of death or serious impairment. For me, a service dog would need to pay pretty much constant attention to me for any of the triggering conditions for its tasks.
Bringing that back around to thread, I note a couple upshots:
a) Service dogs, almost by definition, are not going to be the ones running at people. The exact opposite: I'll need to protect my service dog from people who could dull or harm the extremely high maintained level of training required for the dog to serve effectively.
b) Service dogs will also therefore have to be, almost by definition, either leashed or on strong verbal command at all times, otherwise they're not able to perform that service. (Unless they're in the midst of performing a task like "get help" that requires them to temporarily go away from their owner. )
c) Because of the above two, much of what one thinks of as 'canine good citizen' training is also an implicit training requirement for service dogs. Ditto for multi-environment training — if dog's distracted or impaired by environment, they can't perform their tasks. Etc.
If the dog can't perform in those environments, then it's not sufficiently trained (in those environments) to perform its service tasks, and thus it is in essence situationally not a service dog any more. (This isn't how the law works, but it is how medical needs work.)
3. In that vein, I think that expecting a high level of good behavior from service dogs is reasonable. Most bad behaviors mean that they're failing at their core service functions, whatever those are.
I also think that any dog (and owner) who has that level of good behavior ability should be allowed wherever service dogs are allowed, even if the dog isn't providing a disability related service. Because at that point it's about what kind of behavior is acceptable, and that's a norm I think is worth enforcing.
Perhaps that's a sort of rule that could be reasonable. It'd also remove the BS I'd otherwise face if the legitimacy of my disability is the focus of questioning. I'd rather just be able to show that my dog is well behaved than talk about my medical issues with some stranger.
Then the rule can be simple:
1. All dogs that follow canine good citizen behaviors (insert list here) are allowed wherever a service dog is allowed, without inquiry as to the owner's disabled status or needs, or the dog's service task (if any). Good dog is a good dog. Some of them (the service dogs) are also working.
2. Make canine good citizenship testing and training available cheap through local government supported programs. Make it free, for all working / service / guide / etc dogs (or those in training to be one), whether self-trained or professionally.
3. Rejoice at all the well behaved dogs added to our lives and the social contract against poorly behaved animals getting additional force.
posted by saizai at 7:31 PM on September 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
1. corb, sorry for omitting you when saying there were no other service dog needers/havers on thread. Glad to see your comments.
2. Service dogs, no matter what their task, generally cannot perform that task if they are distracted by other people. An implicit task for all service dogs is to ignore distractors like other people, food on the ground, etc., while they are "on the job" (usually equivalent to "vest on" — vest off meaning they get to just be dogs and go play etc).
Service & guide dog orgs are universally pretty harsh about this — never touch or even interact with a service dog without explicit owner permission, expect permission to be denied when they're on the job, owners will not allow dogs to eat food from anyone but themselves, etc. You might wonder why. Frankly, I did.
Answer is simple. If I have a guide dog, and the dog gets distracted by some food on the crosswalk or someone kneeling to pet the nice dog or whatever, I am at risk for getting hit by a car.
If I have a service dog, and any of those happen, then in the case of my particular conditions, I am at risk of death or serious impairment. For me, a service dog would need to pay pretty much constant attention to me for any of the triggering conditions for its tasks.
Bringing that back around to thread, I note a couple upshots:
a) Service dogs, almost by definition, are not going to be the ones running at people. The exact opposite: I'll need to protect my service dog from people who could dull or harm the extremely high maintained level of training required for the dog to serve effectively.
b) Service dogs will also therefore have to be, almost by definition, either leashed or on strong verbal command at all times, otherwise they're not able to perform that service. (Unless they're in the midst of performing a task like "get help" that requires them to temporarily go away from their owner. )
c) Because of the above two, much of what one thinks of as 'canine good citizen' training is also an implicit training requirement for service dogs. Ditto for multi-environment training — if dog's distracted or impaired by environment, they can't perform their tasks. Etc.
If the dog can't perform in those environments, then it's not sufficiently trained (in those environments) to perform its service tasks, and thus it is in essence situationally not a service dog any more. (This isn't how the law works, but it is how medical needs work.)
3. In that vein, I think that expecting a high level of good behavior from service dogs is reasonable. Most bad behaviors mean that they're failing at their core service functions, whatever those are.
I also think that any dog (and owner) who has that level of good behavior ability should be allowed wherever service dogs are allowed, even if the dog isn't providing a disability related service. Because at that point it's about what kind of behavior is acceptable, and that's a norm I think is worth enforcing.
Perhaps that's a sort of rule that could be reasonable. It'd also remove the BS I'd otherwise face if the legitimacy of my disability is the focus of questioning. I'd rather just be able to show that my dog is well behaved than talk about my medical issues with some stranger.
Then the rule can be simple:
1. All dogs that follow canine good citizen behaviors (insert list here) are allowed wherever a service dog is allowed, without inquiry as to the owner's disabled status or needs, or the dog's service task (if any). Good dog is a good dog. Some of them (the service dogs) are also working.
2. Make canine good citizenship testing and training available cheap through local government supported programs. Make it free, for all working / service / guide / etc dogs (or those in training to be one), whether self-trained or professionally.
3. Rejoice at all the well behaved dogs added to our lives and the social contract against poorly behaved animals getting additional force.
posted by saizai at 7:31 PM on September 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
I also think that any dog (and owner) who has that level of good behavior ability should be allowed wherever service dogs are allowed, even if the dog isn't providing a disability related service. Because at that point it's about what kind of behavior is acceptable, and that's a norm I think is worth enforcing.
Now you're just making the entire world less accessible for anyone with an allergy to or phobia of dogs for the hell of it. No amount of canine good citizen training is going to remove the fact that you're dealing with balancing competing accessibility needs, inherently. In light of that, I posit restricting service dogs to where they're needed (i.e. actual service dogs fine, well-behaved dogs that you do not have a medical need for, no).
posted by Dysk at 2:07 AM on September 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Now you're just making the entire world less accessible for anyone with an allergy to or phobia of dogs for the hell of it. No amount of canine good citizen training is going to remove the fact that you're dealing with balancing competing accessibility needs, inherently. In light of that, I posit restricting service dogs to where they're needed (i.e. actual service dogs fine, well-behaved dogs that you do not have a medical need for, no).
posted by Dysk at 2:07 AM on September 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Dysk: Allergies are a fair point.
Any other drawbacks?
posted by saizai at 2:22 AM on September 21, 2017
Any other drawbacks?
posted by saizai at 2:22 AM on September 21, 2017
Well, you'd also still need to sort out making these incredibly well-trained dogs available to people with medical conditions that necessitate them, in a country with no national healthcare system.
And like, allergies are kinda hard to overstate when people are taking about dramatically increasing the number of service animals - if substantial numbers of service animals are riding the subway, for example, that might fully exclude someone with allergies, all the time, even when there aren't any service dogs about. The standards of cleanliness you'd suddenly need even for outside public areas to not effectively turn anyone with allergies into a complete hermit on a world with lots of dogs is... prohibitive. And that's ignoring the fact that you'd practically find it impossible to avoid the dogs themselves.
posted by Dysk at 2:28 AM on September 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
And like, allergies are kinda hard to overstate when people are taking about dramatically increasing the number of service animals - if substantial numbers of service animals are riding the subway, for example, that might fully exclude someone with allergies, all the time, even when there aren't any service dogs about. The standards of cleanliness you'd suddenly need even for outside public areas to not effectively turn anyone with allergies into a complete hermit on a world with lots of dogs is... prohibitive. And that's ignoring the fact that you'd practically find it impossible to avoid the dogs themselves.
posted by Dysk at 2:28 AM on September 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Now you're just making the entire world less accessible for anyone with an allergy to or phobia of dogs for the hell of it. No amount of canine good citizen training is going to remove the fact that you're dealing with balancing competing accessibility needs, inherently. In light of that, I posit restricting service dogs to where they're needed (i.e. actual service dogs fine, well-behaved dogs that you do not have a medical need for, no).
But the thing is, again, if you consider the amount of people with a major disability who could benefit from a service dog, you're talking about doing that anyway. Right now, service dogs are largely restricted by cost. If the cost barrier was removed, or if, say, even just Medicaid or Medicare paid for service dogs, we'd see a radical increase in the amount of people with service dogs who do need them.
posted by corb at 6:18 AM on September 21, 2017
But the thing is, again, if you consider the amount of people with a major disability who could benefit from a service dog, you're talking about doing that anyway. Right now, service dogs are largely restricted by cost. If the cost barrier was removed, or if, say, even just Medicaid or Medicare paid for service dogs, we'd see a radical increase in the amount of people with service dogs who do need them.
posted by corb at 6:18 AM on September 21, 2017
In which case, that might potentially change the balance of protections needed to adequately balance competing accessibility issues. But that's a hypothetical - as long as the quantity and concentration of dogs isn't that level of problem, it isn't that level of problem. Personally, I'm not so convinced that better access would mean an uptake on quite that scale.
posted by Dysk at 6:48 AM on September 21, 2017
posted by Dysk at 6:48 AM on September 21, 2017
« Older Requiem for a weasel | "just as we never ate together, neither did we... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rudhraigh at 12:06 AM on September 18, 2017 [8 favorites]