Dogs to not be allowed off leash at Indian Creek?

new yosemitesamwrote:

In a valley full of open range cattle, i love the idea that it's the dogs we need to worry about hurting the eco system

Well that is a different topic entirely. It is extremely difficult to respect the ranching in Indian Creek. 

For ranching, please read 

for dogs, please leash

Jay Andersonwrote:

Like the nice dog who bit me at the crag?  Or the nice dog who bit me on the mountain bike?  It was reassuring to have the owner tell me he usually doesn't do that.  Leave it at home.

I am playing Devil's advocate but my dog has never shown aggression to a human and I have raised/trained her since being a puppy... So what if that doesn't happen?

I am a dog owner and I take my dog climbing. She is generally off-leash when allowed to be so, and in ten years she has never shown aggression towards a human or another animal (insects excepted). I am okay with a leash requirement.  There are way too many shitty dogs and absentee owners out there. 

Cory Nwrote:

For ranching, please read 

Thanks for sharing - looks like some good background. 

After reading Cadillac Desert I can't support cattle or alfalfa in the desert West. I do understand historically it is what it is, but moving forward into a water scarcity world, things like ranching in Indian Creek are the low hanging fruit that has to go. 

Erik Misiakwrote:

I am playing Devil's advocate but my dog has never shown aggression to a human and I have raised/trained her since being a puppy... So what if that doesn't happen?

Dog nazis are incapable of reason in this respect.  

I've been bitten twice in my life, both by leashed dogs. A conclusion I could draw from this anecdotal evidence would be that all leashed dogs are dangerous. (Leash aggression IS a thing though.) At least until I compare those few bad encounters to the countless dog encounters I've had that were completely benign and uneventful. 

The cryptobiotic soil and environmental argument is probably the closest to being a valid reason for leashing, at least until you consider that humans are likely the main culprit (by far) for the degradation of the environment at Indian Creek. The walls, hills leading up to them, and the areas people camp at, would likely be in pristine condition if it weren't for climbers. To ignore that and attempt to shift the blame to off leash dogs is kind of ridiculous. 

I don't disagree that some dogs should be leashed (thoughtfully) or even not brought at all. But I think that decision should be left to the owner, who bears all responsibility for their dog's actions, and hopefully will be realistic and honest with themselves when making that decision. If people can't be trusted to make wise decisions, then maybe people shouldn't be there at all. 

I can't believe it--there truly is another dog thread starting!  It's like Christmass and my birthday falling on the same day!

And there's a new angle!

1-Climbers complain about dogs off leash...

2-Government passes Big Bad Law...

3-Climbers complain that dogs now have to be leashed...

What is stronger? People's desire to see dog's on a leash...or people's irritation at their freedom being curtailed by government?

It's a terrible conundrum!

Does aggressive barking count?

grug gwrote:

Thanks for sharing - looks like some good background. 

After reading Cadillac Desert I can't support cattle or alfalfa in the desert West. I do understand historically it is what it is, but moving forward into a water scarcity world, things like ranching in Indian Creek are the low hanging fruit that has to go. 

I’ll have to check it out. For Indian Creek the water comes directly from the Abajos. The headwaters are right off of Robertsons Pasture. To be fair it’s hardly a significant amount of water. Energy Fuels uranium mine uses an insane amount of water out of Recapture. Dugout waters their 4-5 fields and captures that runoff and reuses it. Farming in the desert is dumb, but at least dugout cares. Meanwhile everyone in monticello and blanding waters their lawns and climbers come to SJC and fill up their water and dispose of it in the desert and wash their vans here in town.

It’s interesting in the dugout book Lee talks a lot about the destruction of the summer range (la sals/abajos) which took a huge hit when there was 8000 head of cattle in IC. The abajos are forever changed.

Back to dogs!!

John Clarkwrote:

Does aggressive barking count?

Very much so. Very disturbing--similar situation with climbers' 'power yells/grunts'. Leashing doesn't make a difference in either situation!!!!

Brandon, sadly I've seen apparently intelligent people make unwise decisions concerning their dogs on multiple occasions---a common 'blind spot'.

After reading Cadillac Desert I can't support cattle or alfalfa in the desert West. I do understand historically it is what it is, but moving forward into a water scarcity world, things like ranching in Indian Creek are the low hanging fruit that has to go.

I respect the opinion, for sure.

I live in the west, have read that book and numerous others of similar vein. I agree with the sentiment. But the ranchers were there first and climbers of IC do not represent any sort of enviro improvement, and perhaps they/we are actually worse; certainly no better when we take into account all the driving to get there. I decided a live and let live approach is better than mutual suicide, when complaining about the impacts of others while conveniently ignoring my own. That is my opinion, for me, and is not intended as a criticism of your or anyone else's possibly differing take.

Cory Nwrote:

I’ll have to check it out. For Indian Creek the water comes directly from the Abajos. The headwaters are right off of Robertsons Pasture. To be fair it’s hardly a significant amount of water. Energy Fuels uranium mine uses an insane amount of water out of Recapture. Dugout waters their 4-5 fields and captures that runoff and reuses it. Farming in the desert is dumb, but at least dugout cares. Meanwhile everyone in monticello and blanding waters their lawns and climbers come to SJC and fill up their water and dispose of it in the desert and wash their vans here in town.

It’s interesting in the dugout book Lee talks a lot about the destruction of the summer range (la sals/abajos) which took a huge hit when there was 8000 head of cattle in IC. The abajos are forever changed.

Back to dogs!!

Not sure if this matters but I dislike free range cattle, alfalfa farms, and a green lawns in Utah more then I dislike unleased dogs.

As for Bruno's comment I'm all for being antiestablishment until it comes down to governing our outdoor resources then I'm all for keeping that shit natural.  Unleashed dogs, drones, side by sides, etc. don't got no reason to be wrecking natural beauty. 

Take Coyote Gulch a famous slot canyon as an example.  It became so popular as a backpacking destination that if it wasn't regulated there would be buried poo everywhere in that delicate environment.  When it wasn't popular there was a nice pit toilet that you could use atop a mesa and do your business in the wildest setting with a 360 view of the canyon.  But due to popularity and to keep it a wonderful, amazing place they had to say pack your poop out, get rid of the pit toilet, and don't bring dogs.  100% the right call.  I'd imagine as it keeps up ticking in popularity it will soon be a permit system.  

Indian creek is no different.  If people had more common sense, then there wouldn't be regulations that either make sense or don't.  But I would argue that Burno has given me plenty of examples of why we need regulation as he thinks far too emotionally about dogs which impedes his ability to understand negative impact to environment, other animals, and other people/dogs. 

Alan Rubinwrote:

Very much so. Very disturbing--similar situation with climbers' 'power yells/grunts'. Leashing doesn't make a difference in either situation!!!!

Brandon, sadly I've seen apparently intelligent people make unwise decisions concerning their dogs on multiple occasions---a common 'blind spot'.

I'm with you on keeping the crags relatively quiet and peaceful, including from dogs, bros, and groups that feel the need to cheer each other on all day. 

And yes, people do make poor choices. The better solution though, in cases where the results of poor choices are rather minor and infrequent, is to make the actual bad actions illegal or a finable offence AND educating/informing/shaming as needed. Take littering for example. It happens A LOT. If you do it, and you get caught, you get a ticket. We're not all inconvenienced by having to account for each piece of trash we carried up to the crag at the end of the day, or some other generalized inconvenient restriction. The perpetrator gets punished, but not every other person who doesn't litter. So, rather than punish/restrict all dog owners all the time, the law should say "if your dog does x, y, or z, you will be subject to a fine." And of course, the owners of those dogs (or kids for that matter) who blindly let their dogs do the unwanted behaviors should be educated/informed/shamed also. 

Now, there are other types of poor decisions that do need to be regulated much more stringently. Like complete fire bans during the dry months. But in those cases, a poor decision results in a total devastation of the forest, people's lives and homes lost, and millions of taxpayer dollars spent. Not exactly on the same level as a dog pooping in the bushes or even biting someone, so very different regulatory needs. 

Jordan Wilsonwrote:

Not sure if this matters but I dislike free range cattle, alfalfa farms, and a green lawns in Utah more then I dislike unleased dogs.

As for Bruno's comment I'm all for being antiestablishment until it comes down to governing our outdoor resources then I'm all for keeping that shit natural.  Unleashed dogs, drones, side by sides, etc. don't got no reason to be wrecking natural beauty. 

Take Coyote Gulch a famous slot canyon as an example.  It became so popular as a backpacking destination that if it wasn't regulated there would be buried poo everywhere in that delicate environment.  When it wasn't popular there was a nice pit toilet that you could use atop a mesa and do your business in the wildest setting with a 360 view of the canyon.  But due to popularity and to keep it a wonderful, amazing place they had to say pack your poop out, get rid of the pit toilet, and don't bring dogs.  100% the right call.  I'd imagine as it keeps up ticking in popularity it will soon be a permit system.  

Indian creek is no different.  If people had more common sense, then there wouldn't be regulations that either make sense or don't.  But I would argue that Burno has given me plenty of examples of why we need regulation as he thinks far too emotionally about dogs which impedes his ability to understand negative impact to environment, other animals, and other people/dogs. 

 

And yet the biggest impact I've seen is climbers in Indian Creek. Funny how that works. The fact that climbers think they have no impact is absolutely laughable.

grug gwrote:

Sounds great!!! Dogs are a menace to a fragile, peaceful desert environment. 

As are their climber companions.

IC aerial photos from 30 years ago vs now would be eye opening for sure. I think what would stand out the most is seeing the vegetated areas receding around the campsites, the boulders, the trails and the base of the cliffs. Two of those four would definitely be human traffic to blame,  the trails and cliff base would definitely have quite a bit to do with off leash dogs. Desert areas like this are fragile and I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see temporary closures and a reservation system implemented. c'est la vie

K Mwrote:

And yet the biggest impact I've seen is climbers in Indian Creek. Funny how that works. The fact that climbers think they have no impact is absolutely laughable.

Agreed, that's why I take stance.  My stance on dogs isn't on dogs, it's on climbers who own dogs. My stance on pooping in the desert isn't on the poop its on the person taking the poop.  Hope that makes sense.  

Jordan Wilsonwrote:

Agreed, that's why I take stance.  My stance on dogs isn't on dogs, it's on climbers who own dogs. My stance on pooping in the desert isn't on the poop its on the person taking the poop.  Hope that makes sense.  

Why is people taking poop from the desert bad? Isn’t that what we want?

Jordan Wilsonwrote:

My stance on pooping in the desert isn't on the poop it’s on the person taking the poop.  

John Clarkwrote:

Why is people taking poop from the desert bad? Isn’t that what we want?

I wrote that bad, yeah pack out your shit.