Dogs in the Cottonwoods

Mary Malmros wrote:

Do any of these regs cite just what it is they're afraid of? Has there
been some kind of a problem in the past?

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

I suspect the problem is it's Utah. We have reason to drive through Utah
way too often, and it's never seemed to be a dog friendly state.

Jack

Mary Malmros wrote:
Do any of these regs cite just what it is they're afraid of? Has there
been some kind of a problem in the past?



1st of all, if you are a property owner in LCC you can get a permit.

2nd of all, the animals that reside there, coyotes and such, don't ****
and poop in close proximity to moving water for the most part.

3rd of all, the population of dogs could easily far surpass that of any
wildlife residing in the canyon.

Next time you are traveling up the canyon, take a look at what area is
available away from running water and think about the last time you were
in a roadside reststop pet walking area and then think about the same
quatity of turds on the way into the SLC watershed.

And quit whining... its not all about you sometimes.

RAC

Mary Malmros wrote:

Do any of these regs cite just what it is they're afraid of? Has there
been some kind of a problem in the past?


Sorry about the "whining" comment, Mary. I meant that for the monkey.

"uglymoney" wrote

safely back in Iowa where dogs are still legal and allowed to ****
most anywhere.

Is it really a good idea to have dogs **** most anywhere?
I mean **** is ******, and there's a lot of dogs being fed
a lot of food (prolly too much food, if the numbers of
fat-ass canines I see is any measure.) So, is it really
necessary to have it *everywhere* just because so many
people befriend lower species? (defining the elevation
of the species rather easily as the ability to **** in
a flush toilet. Hell, even Texans can do that.)

None of this would be a problem if dogs shat in their
owner's mouths.

J. Urrrk, Getting enough of other people's dog ****.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:36:18 -0700, Bob Lee wrote:

So is it true? Tell me it isn't so!

nate

safely back in Iowa where dogs are still legal and allowed to ****
most anywhere.

That's been a law there for some time now. I suppose you'd feel
differently if it was about people crapping in the...wherever your water
source is, even if the fish do. I think the theory is to try to limit
the amount of crap in SLC's drinking waters source.

Yes, I'd have a problem if people **** everywhere, or if a huge herd
of dogs **** everywhere in an area which didn't allow for
decomposition before the feces entered a watershed. I know that when
I take my dog to a ski area and let her run on leash, she never ****s
anyway, because she always ****s in the morning and the evening and I
always pick it up and flush it if I am at a motel anyway.

But if they want to ban dogs, fine (I think its overkill and
ridiculous) but they should allow me to have a dog in my car - not
****ting, ****ing, or otherwise entering the ecosystem except to
breath some air and maybe bark once when I lock the doors.

Dogs in cars should not be illegal anywhere.

I have a 25 lb dog and honestly, I can hide her completely other than
the bark she lets out when I lock her in. Window tint, curtain, she
is hidden and comfortable with a large area to lounge in, but it all
seems so senseless. Its not like she is a level II narcotic. I
should not have to hide my dog.

Where are the
Wasatchians (Wasatchmos?) on this topic?


Yes, what I really want to know is, will the sheriff actually give a
ticket to the letter of the law for having a dog in a car?

Oddly enough, during my visit to Big Cottonwood Canyon last month I did
most of my crapping in an outhouse just above Silver Fork. And I didn't
have a permit. Drink up, SLC!

Rebel!

I skied Solitude on Friday. I really had a good day. Nice area,
bigger than it looks on map, some nice steep stuff, corn on the
backside, some heavy powder waaaay out on the long traverse, good
groomers off the quad in the manana.

I think they could do a little better with their map. Its a better
ski area than the drawing indicates.

nate

rosco wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote:

Do any of these regs cite just what it is they're afraid of? Has
there been some kind of a problem in the past?



1st of all, if you are a property owner in LCC you can get a permit.

Okay. So what is it about a resident's dog that's different from a
visitor passing through?

2nd of all, the animals that reside there, coyotes and such, don't ****
and poop in close proximity to moving water for the most part.

That's interesting information. What's your source for this? Here in
this part of the world, I've seen plenty of deer poop and bear poop and
whatnot, and never particularly noticed a scrupulous care to avoid
"running water" (which is not the only kind of water involved in a
watershed, FWIW).

3rd of all, the population of dogs could easily far surpass that of any
wildlife residing in the canyon.

It could. But what's the problem specific to dog poop?

Next time you are traveling up the canyon, take a look at what area is
available away from running water and think about the last time you were
in a roadside reststop pet walking area and then think about the same
quatity of turds on the way into the SLC watershed.

I've never traveled up that canyon, or had any plans to, and certainly I
don't plan to acquire a dog and bring it there. Thing about watersheds,
though, is that **** happens. While that's not a reason to encourage or
even allow everyone to poop everywhere, anyone who didn't just fall off
the cabbage truck knows that you don't drink untreated water -- and, if
you're a city government, you don't put untreated water into the city's
mains. I want to know what's the _specific_ threat from domestic dogs
to a water supply that already contains pathogens and that will have to
be treated in order to be safe for consumption -- particularly when
those dogs are traveling through in cars and never set foot on the
hallowed ground of the SLC watershed.

And quit whining... its not all about you sometimes.

I wasn't whining, you idjit. I was _asking a question_, which you still
haven't answered. You've been spending too much time on usenet if you
call a request for further information "whining".

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

rosco wrote:



Mary Malmros wrote:

Do any of these regs cite just what it is they're afraid of? Has
there been some kind of a problem in the past?


Sorry about the "whining" comment, Mary. I meant that for the monkey.

Apology accepted. Better be careful with the monkey comments, though,
they might eat your face off, Hannibal Lechter-style.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...+National+News

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

I'm more concerned with the fact that you had your dog locked up in your car
for a freaking week..

"uglymoney" wrote in message
...
No dogs in the canyons. Apparently the don't want dog crap in the
cities pristine drinking water. Fine. I think its a ridiculous law,
but I am someone who is able to conform to most laws. I did not allow
my precious little dog to wander or even step foot on either canyon
floor.

However I heard talk..

No dogs in a car in the canyons? Could this be possible? While
skiing last week and taking a lunch break with my dog (who was safely
in the back of my wagon hidden behind deeply tinted windows, only
visible from behind since I had the hatch open) I was approached by a
woman who wanted to know how I got a permit for dog possession - I
told her I didn't have one and she seemed disturbed somehow) and then
a nice guy approached with a desire to pet my dog. I allowed him the
honor of giving Summit some strokes and he then informed me that I
best keep my dog out of sight or risk a ticket!

WHAT!!!!

You mean to tell me that some jackass sherrif would give me a ticket
for possessing a self contained dog inside of my car? Is that even
possible? Constitutional?

Whatever. I didn't worry about it, I just continued to ski and enjoy
my week in Utah with full knowledge that if I did happen to get a
ticket for dog possession in a canyon the money spent on that ticket
would be the last penny I ever spent skiing in Utah.

I received no ticket despite risking more lunch's with my dog and an
open hatch, and so I am blessed with the ability to return to Utah
with my dog, who is really the only true ski companion that I have
since I possess no girlfriend of any type.

So is it true? Tell me it isn't so!

nate

safely back in Iowa where dogs are still legal and allowed to ****
most anywhere.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:07:09 +1000, "AH" wrote:

I'm more concerned with the fact that you had your dog locked up in your car
for a freaking week..

Seeing as how your a known jackass, that doesn't suprise me.

nate

"uglymoney" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:07:09 +1000, "AH" wrote:

I'm more concerned with the fact that you had your dog locked up in your
car
for a freaking week..

Seeing as how your a known jackass, that doesn't suprise me.

nate

I'm a known jackass?