>|> Although my kids are wild, they aren't aren't wild animals in the context of
>|> this discussion. Nevertheless, I take them with me because I love them, they
>|> enjoy the outdoors, and I like having them with me. I've had my dog a lot
>|> longer than my kids, and the same reasons apply to my dog. Needless to say,
>|> my dog has made a lot more backpacking and camping trips than my kids.
>So doggies and people should be given equal treatment. Cut me a break!
>This arguement is as transparent as it is flawwed.
My argument was exactly as flawed as the statement I was refuting, namely
that the lack of "wildness" of anything is not a valid argument for not
taking it into the woods.
>|> A dog can also be very utilitarian in the outdoors. Mine carries his own
>|> food and equipment, and sometimes a little of mine. He also guards the
>|> camp at night. I usually place my backpack just out of reach of him on
>|> his leash. Presto -- no critters in my pack or food.
>I suggest you read some books on backpacking or go on some organized trips
>to learn how to discourage critters from getting your food. A dog is not
>necessary. And guard your camp at night? Guard it from what? If sleeping
>out is that scary I suggest you camp in your backyard (amidst all the little
>piles of doggie sculpture).
By guarding my camp, I meant exactly what I followed that sentance with,
namely keeping critters out of my food and equipment.
As for other ways to keep animals out of food and equipment, after having
read several books, and having several hundred miles of walking with a
backpack on over the past 20 some years or so, I've found no way as effective
as using my dog. I don't always take my dog, and am famaliar with and have
used many of the ways you are alluding to. I've even had to invent a method
I never read or heard about. So please keep your superiority complex to
>Dogs disrupt wilderness ecosystems. They act as disease vectors into and
>out of wildlife populations, their presence disrupts wildlife diurnal/
>nocturnal movements (especially ungulates and ursine/feline predators)
>to a profoundly greater degree than a human presence, and digging, urination
>and defecation by your canine buddies also greatly increases "visitor impacts"
>to sensitive areas--a subject discussed at length in this group.
Ahh, finally some interesting information. And some that I can admit to
not being in a good position to positively refute. But I'd like to ask if
you could elaborate a little. My dog is vaccinated against numerous diseases
that are more frequently carried from wild canines to domestic ones. I am
not familiar with any diseases that typically go from well vaccinated dogs
to unvaccinated wild ones. Also, how does my dog disrupt diurnal/nocturnal
movements any more than wild canines and other predators far more prevelent
in the same woods than domestic visitors? Lastly, I do avoid taking my dog
into sensitive areas. For that matter, I avoid taking myself there for any
more than a brief visit. I would only camp in such an area for survival
>Leave the freakin' dog at home! Geez!
If you really want to end domestic animals disrupting ecosystems of wild
areas, then join me and others trying to end cattle and sheep grazing on
wild forested lands. I've even run into "slow elk" in established and
marked wilderness areas. Talk about impact!
Lastly Peter, sorry for the flames, but you've got to admit, you kind of
asked for it. This isn't talk.politics. Let's keep the flame throwing to
groups where it's really called for, and have a rational discussion. I never
intended for my original post to be interpreted as flaming, just refuting
of an opinion. If I find your logical arguments persuasive enough, I might
even stop taking the dog. But if you're going to keep flame throwing, you
might as well give up now. I do look forward to your answers, if they are
properly lacking of flames.
The opionions expressed herein are probably not those of my employer.
What they are I may never know.
"Kid -- Have you rehabilitated yourself?" - Arlo Guthrie