You are here

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

Share

It always surprises me to see folks bring their pets -- usually dogs -- to national parks. It's surprising because most parks ban pets from trails, and always require them to be on leashes. As a result, the pets usually spend time in a nearby kennel, in the rig, or being walked in parking lots. Should the rules change?

While we always leave our springers behind at home, more than a few pet owners wouldn't think for a minute of leaving their animals -- family members, actually -- behind. While park officials don't want dogs and other pets to get in frays with wildlife, leave their "messes" behind, or bother other visitors, some pet owners will point out that their pets are better behaved than many of today's teens and a surprising number of adults.

What do you think? Are park officials being overly stringent in banning pets on trails? Do you avoid national parks because of these regulations?

Comments

Sounds like a photo op to me, Julie!


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


While I understand this poster's frustration, I think that saying all dog owners must be responsible is harsh, unrealistic, and unfair. How about "until all drivers stop speeding we won't let anyone use cars". or "until everyone controls their children we won't allow children in the parks. I like the idea of allowing dogs some trails and not others, perhaps the trails that allow horses.


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


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

Chrissy Field. Hold the line! Enough said.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.