Human Trail Pigs

[Sarcasm the elf]

Given that this thread does seem to deal with trail dogs to a certain degree, I have a question and I am hoping that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended - open, sincere, really wanting an answer or a constructive discussion and NOT to troll or cause a problem.

Here is what I would like to know. When I am backpacking, or hiking, or trail running, from time to time I do see dogs approach me with no visible owner. Most of the time, within a short period of time, the owner will at least come into earshot if not view, and realize that the dog has encountered another human. At that point, the owner will either call the dog back (and it will go or not go) or the owner will say, "this dog is friendly" or some variation. I still mostly don't pet other folks' dogs because I don't know how the people OR the dogs will feel about it, but hopefully that is understood as a sign of respect (the same as I would not touch someone else's child unless invited to do so). I don't scream or snarl that I know of.

My question relates to the interim period, when the dog is visible but the owner isn't. As the person encountering that dog, not knowing anything about it, what is the proper reaction? It doesn't really seem like the very best course of action is to assume that the dog is friendly and safe, because sadly enough not all dogs are. What I always do upon encountering an owner-less dog is back WAY down, back WAY off, stop whatever I am doing and keep my eyes on the dog at all times until the situation is resolved somehow. I am thinking that perhaps owners still feel that is unfriendly or hostile behavior? So I guess what should other trail users be doing, when they encounter a dog without an owner?

Jane

Ah yes, the infuriating dog without owner scenario. This is one least favorite things to deal with on the trail and only gets worse if I have my leashed dog with me, since I then have to deal with controling both my dog and the one that is unattended.

I have no perfect way of dealing with it, but what I typically do when a strange dog approaches me on trail without a visible owner I call out something such as "Git!" this usually causes them to run back to their owners and solves the problem before it starts. Most dogs know enough to reapond to a firm "No" or often just a hand held straight out in the universal "stop" signal. If andog does approach me my default is to place my hiking poles between the dog and myself, not in a threatening manner, I simply put the tips in the ground in front of me and hold them much in the same way I would if I stopped for a moment to rest. This creates some space between myself and the dog, plus dogs are smart enough to know that by doing this I'm giving them a signal that they should not approach me. This techniques is great because it stops friendly dogs from jumping on me in additon to keeping potentially fear aggressive dogs away.


You are correct to never assume a dog is friendly. It is important to understand that dogs are creatures of habit and do not generalize well; a dog that is not used to being in the woods or encountering strangers by itself can become both stressed and defensive in this situation, even if it is normally a very friendly in everyday life (an important point that many irresponsible owners fail to understand.) I've gotten to the point where I don't let a dog approach me on the trail until after I have met and spoken to the owner.

Regarding the people who say "Oh, he's friendly" I respond by saying "Yeah, he's also not under control."

p.s. My town has done the fund-raising for and is now opening a dedicated dog park, where all the dogs can play together and run free. This strikes me as a very sensible and good solution.

Unfortunately dog parks really aren't the great idea that people think they are and are likely somewhat of a fad. Dogs are pack animals that thrive when they are around dogs they know with an understood dominance hierarchy. My dog's trainer refers to dog parks as "the most unnatural situation you can possibly put a dog into." Sadly injuries, dogfights, fights between angry owners, and resulting lawsuits are all fairly common at dog parks. I used to go to the one in New Canaan a decade ago and witnessed all of these things happen. The public New Canaan dog park has since been transformed into what is effectiy a members club because of these problems. They have locked the gates and you are not allowed access until you sign up and your dog has been approved by a formal process.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Do you mean going to imright.com finding "facts" that support your comment? I bet you were disqualified in foot races for jumping the starting line before the gun.

Hehe...I'm actually having a hard time finding this one in imright.com, all the google searches just want to sell me a guided horseback tour of the park instead of giving me any background info or history. I think I originally read the info in an honest to goodness printed book, but I can't recall exactly where.

[Dogwood]

Here's a question. Dogs are banned from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, however, horses aren't, and in many cases, hikers share the AT with horseback riders. I have never seen a rider clean up after their horse, and they leave four times as much as my dog. What gives? I never understood that.

I'll wait for Tipi Walter to chime in on this- I know he hates it.

This is incorrect.

Again, have to say it again, because there are some short memories abounding here or those who will not read an entire thread considered the comments in context. I am NOT anti dog or anti horse OR pro dog or pro horse!

Dogs ARE ALLOWED in GSMNP under certain circumstances. For instance, walking a dog on gravel roads or in the Cades Cove area or in picnic or CG areas or on some walking paths/trails ALWAYS ON A LEASH. They are not allowed in the backcountry and, again always on a leash.

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/pets.htm

http://hikinginthesmokys.blogspot.co...n-smokies.html



HORSES ARE ALSO ALLOWED in GSMNP under certain circumstances. Camping with horses or public horse back riding is only allowed on certain trails. One noteworthy consideration: BOTH dogs and horses are to always be controlled and contained and properly supervised by their owners/users. Ever see a horse running freely rampaging in GSMNP?

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/horseriding.htm

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/horsecamps.htm

[Lone Wolf]

some things will never change. trashin' the trail is one of them. only gonna get worse

[AO2134]

Yes, horses do a tremendous amount of trail damage and of course leave their turds everywhere. Having a thousand lb animal on steel hooves is crazy when they are allowed on our mountain trails. They always make big dirt divots on the outermost part of a trail causing the trail to collapse downhill.

And when crossing mud bogs or creeks they leave a giant rutted mud mess almost impossible to pass thru on foot.

Oh and btw, horses are not indigenous to the North American continent and haven't been here for 10,000 years. They are an introduced invasive species.

Horsemen, who I called Saddle Potatoes (because horses do all the work), in effect leave their horse turds all thru the woods and never seem to care. Do they carry poop bags and haul it out? Nope. Here is therefore the lesson from the horsemen: If it's alright for them to crap right in the middle of the trail, it should be a-okay for backpackers to squat on the trail and leave our turds. Why not? It's okay for horses and the horseback riders. End O' Rant.

Mt Rogers backcountry is one of the worse places for horseback riders. I found this dropped shoe in the Lewis Fork wilderness.

Tipi, do you have the same complain when Rangers use horses or just us regular folks (i.e., regular people who use horses to enjoy the trail)?

I can understand why Rangers would have need and use for fast and efficient travel through the park. I understand less why regular people do, but this comes from someone who hates the concept of "car campers" as a general rule. The idea of not carrying your own weight annoys me.

Could horses and llamas be useful in helping trail maintainers transport equipment? Sure. I'd be okay with that, I am less okay with it when it is just lazy "hikers."

[Dogwood]

Could horses and llamas be useful in helping trail maintainers transport equipment?

Yes. It already occurs.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

This is incorrect.

Again, have to say it again, because there are some short memories abounding here or those who will not read an entire thread considered the comments in context. I am NOT anti dog or anti horse OR pro dog or pro horse!

Dogs ARE ALLOWED in GSMNP under certain circumstances. For instance, walking a dog on gravel roads or in the Cades Cove area or in picnic or CG areas or on some walking paths/trails ALWAYS ON A LEASH. They are not allowed in the backcountry and, again always on a leash.

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/pets.htm

http://hikinginthesmokys.blogspot.co...n-smokies.html



HORSES ARE ALSO ALLOWED in GSMNP under certain circumstances. Camping with horses or public horse back riding is only allowed on certain trails. One noteworthy consideration: BOTH dogs and horses are to always be controlled and contained and properly supervised by their owners/users. Ever see a horse running freely rampaging in GSMNP?

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/horseriding.htm

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/horsecamps.htm

My statement is only partially incorrect. As far as the AT is concerned, it is 100% factual. I 100% can't bring my dog on any stretch of the AT through the park, but I can 100% ride a horse along certain stretches of the AT through the park.

For the sake of discussion, I could care less about Cades Cove. I am only concerned about the backcountry; the AT to be specific.

Now let me add by saying, I am a dog owner, and I HATE seeing dog poop on the trail, and I also HATE irresponsible dog owners. (I have several idiot owners in my neighborhood).

[JumpMaster Blaster]

One of the local trails near my house is "foot traffic only". Unfortunately, some jerks bring their horses and ATVs out on it from time to time. Guess what? Unless the ATVs are doing donuts, the horses do more damage.

To play devil's advocate, could a horse or llama (or similar pack animal) help a person hike the AT?

[Dogwood]

Truth is truth. Mathematical Logics class taught me if part of a statement is false it makes the statement false. Textbook Logics questions are seen many times on tests like the SATs or Lie Detector tests.

For further sake of clarity you are indeed correct only portions of the AT are publicly open to horses. One can not ride the entire AT through GSMNP on a horse. Again, nobody, including hikers, get free reign to do any and all that they could possibly desire. Thank God!


Here is where horses are allowed on the AT.

https://www.smokiesadventure.com/smo...ack-riding.htm

https://www.smokiesadventure.com/smo...apOct-2012.pdf

Horses are allowed on dotted trails, not on the dashed trails.

I understand your concern as a dog lover. There are good reasons why dog rules are in place in GSMNP though. AND, there are good reasons why horse and hiker rules are ALSO in place in GSMNP.

[Traveler]

Having seen the "multi-use" trail concept that combines hikers with bicycles and horses, I have to say I am not a big fan. It seems a poor mix of users from the hiker perspective, though somewhat understandable in places where there is high population and little public land.

[Two Speed]

Yes, horses do a tremendous amount of trail damage and of course leave their turds everywhere . . .

I have my issues with horses, too. When I did the Alabama Pinhoti a several years ago it was obvious that some of the locals didn't give a hot d*** about where horses were allowed, and where the trail was closed to horses. One section of side trail still stands out in my memory because the trail was about "kicked" out by horse traffic; hoof prints clearly in the collapsing part of the trail.

And yet when I finished the Alabama Pinhoti it was some horsemen that arranged a ride for me from Jackson Chapel to Cave Spring, and fed me a big ol' bag of the most awesome deer jerky I've ever had while we hung around waiting for my ride to show up. They wouldn't take a penny, all they wanted to do was chew the fat and exchange info on the trail and surrounding area. They struck me as very ethical outdoorsmen.

The short version is I don't blame the horses, I blame the knuckleheads that don't understand their sport. Much like backpacking my experience is the knuckleheads are a minority, they just cause a disproportionate amount of damage.

[Tipi Walter]

Tipi, do you have the same complaint when Rangers use horses or just us regular folks (i.e., regular people who use horses to enjoy the trail)?

I can understand why Rangers would have need and use for fast and efficient travel through the park. I understand less why regular people do, but this comes from someone who hates the concept of "car campers" as a general rule. The idea of not carrying your own weight annoys me.

Could horses and llamas be useful in helping trail maintainers transport equipment? Sure. I'd be okay with that, I am less okay with it when it is just lazy "hikers."

Rangers on horseback are still horses on the trail no matter who rides them, with all the damage mentioned.

[DuneElliot]

I'm not going to get into an argument with anyone "anti-horses on the trail" but I do want to correct one thing. Horses DO NOT do all the work...it is a lot of work being in the saddle...you don't just sit there like a sack of potatoes. Riding horses uses more muscles than hiking and uses an average of 270 calories per hour.

[Tipi Walter]

I'm not going to get into an argument with anyone "anti-horses on the trail" but I do want to correct one thing. Horses DO NOT do all the work...it is a lot of work being in the saddle...you don't just sit there like a sack of potatoes. Riding horses uses more muscles than hiking and uses an average of 270 calories per hour.

I still call them saddle potatoes. Here are some personal factoids:
** My weight: 155 lbs
** Pack weight: 85 lbs
** Foot Trail: Nutbuster upper Slickrock OR North Fork Citico OR Brush Mt Citico OR Jenkins Meadow Joyce Kilmer wilderness.
** Calories per hour: around 900.

Now you see why I call them saddle potatoes.

In the Southeast where I go backpacking 99% of the horseback riders I see are Done In A Day types---they never carry gear for overnighters. In fact I have never seen horsemen spend the night in the woods on backcountry trails, although I rarely go into the Smokies.

And no matter how many calories horsemen expend, it doesn't discount the damage they are doing to our foot trails and in mud bogs and around creek crossings; oh and the poop they leave on the trail and in the water.

Btw, do these guys look like they are burning 270 calories per hour? (Taken on Stone Mt in the crest zone of Mt Rogers)---

[Dogwood]

Well, that's a big pack o tatters on your back too. Have you considered the extra damage you can do to the trail slogging all that stuff and wt? The horror of deep human footprints that lead to erosion and broken flowering flora. How many crushed plants and amphibians and beneficial insects has that semi sized hauler notched?

Gonna happen folks. Gonna see more trails nationwide becoming multi use. Better learn to get along share the trail where multi use is allowed or hike on footpath only trails. Might be better than jus bit chin and complain in about why you don't have everything the way you personally desire it. IMHO, I'd rather meet conscientious equestrians and pack train handlers(this has been the experienced norm for me!), hunters, mountain bikers, fishermen, and even ATVers(where they are allowed!) than spoiled selfish low level consciousness backpackers/hikers.

[TNhiker]

Better learn to get along share the trail where multi use is allowed or hike on footpath only trails.

yup............

and in the Park-----the horsemen association does more trail work and what not, then hiking or backpacking groups do.......

[DuneElliot]

yup............

and in the Park-----the horsemen association does more trail work and what not, then hiking or backpacking groups do.......

The Backcountry Horsemen of America (all chapters across the US) do a HUGE amount of trail work and repair, not to mention hauling in the tools and equipment that people can't carry.

[Dogwood]

Oh and btw, horses are not indigenous to the North American continent and haven't been here for 10,000 years. They are an introduced invasive species."

Actually, that is quite debatable. Certain Equus species are scientifically proven to indeed be indigenous to the N. American continent. http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2014/10/07/north-americas-wild-horses-native/#axzz473LovuNN

Your non native invasive species language is an argument used to lay the groundwork basis by those like yourself, ranchers, Wilderness Areas and BLM land accessors(cattlemen), mineral/logging/water/etc rights seekers that wish to preclude horses, "wild" or otherwise, from these areas. It's an underlying self serving basis for the extermination of existing "wild" horse populations in the west and mid west.

[Dogwood]

Yes, horses do a tremendous amount of trail damage and of course leave their turds everywhere. Having a thousand lb animal on steel hooves is crazy when they are allowed on our mountain trails. They always make big dirt divots on the outermost part of a trail causing the trail to collapse downhill.

And when crossing mud bogs or creeks they leave a giant rutted mud mess almost impossible to pass thru on foot…

Rangers on horseback are still horses on the trail no matter who rides them, with all the damage mentioned.

In the Southeast where I go backpacking 99% of the horseback riders I see are Done In A Day types---they never carry gear for overnighters. In fact I have never seen horsemen spend the night in the woods on backcountry trails, although I rarely go into the Smokies.

And no matter how many calories horsemen expend, it doesn't discount the damage they are doing to our foot trails and in mud bogs and around creek crossings; oh and the poop they leave on the trail and in the water…

You make valid observations but as you say you're doing 99% of you backpacking in the Southeast so you're limited geographical experiences of damage horses create is not universally the same across the U.S.

[Tipi Walter]

Oh and btw, horses are not indigenous to the North American continent and haven't been here for 10,000 years. They are an introduced invasive species."

Actually, that is quite debatable. Certain Equus species are scientifically proven to indeed be indigenous to the N. American continent. http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2014/10/07/north-americas-wild-horses-native/#axzz473LovuNN

Your non native invasive species language is an argument used to lay the groundwork basis by those like yourself, ranchers, Wilderness Areas and BLM land accessors(cattlemen), mineral/logging/water/etc rights seekers that wish to preclude horses, "wild" or otherwise, from these areas. It's an underlying self serving basis for the extermination of existing "wild" horse populations in the west and mid west.

My only qualification is that horses and their riders do not belong on foot trails in the mountains of TN, VA and NC. This is a common sight in the Mt Rogers wilderness area open to horses---


Pic from---
http://enduro-mtb.com/en/wilderness-...2%AD-american/