Dogs at Muir

Post by **pigsteak** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:15 am

Thank you Michelle and Stephanie. However, Karen and I do not want to be above the Muir Valley rule of no dogs. We as a community have failed to police ourselves, and we as a community will find ways to continue to climb.

I am 100% for Rick's ban, because as a landowner he has the final say. Rick has already let me know how difficult the decision was for him. I take him at his word.

BTW, every climber at the Red, dog owners or not, whether you've climbed at Muir or not, owes the Weber's a huge thank you for use of their land. Their generosity has spread out the crowds from your favorite place to climb.

DuppyC is correct. Development will go on as usual, with new blood in the pipeline.

And to Liz and Rick, a heartfelt thank you for the use of your land.

Kipp, Karen and River

Post by **Wes** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:41 am

DuppyC wrote: Since the cliffs have been there for 6,000 years, AND there always seems to be someone new wanting to bolt routes, I am pretty certain the climbing will survive without Pigsteak, his dog and his bolts. If you do decide to go in that direction, thanks for all you have done to date!

You know what kinda bothers me about this, is that odds are good the Kipp, and most of the other people that develop will probably still be climbing long after all the gumbies and whiners. I know in my short time climbing, I have seen many, many people start, get all excited for a year or three, then fade away. And usually the worse the whine, the shorter the stay, and the less they actually climb. Just something to think about.

Pru · Post by **Pru** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:58 am

Pigsteak, that post is going to ruin your reputation here.

In the bigger picture, there can't be exceptions to the no dog rule because that will open the floodgates to people who are inclined to violate the rule (which I think is going to happen anyway). An "ALL DOGS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT" sign might not be such a bad idea after all.

Post by **weber** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:03 pm

Artsay wrote:Not that my opinion matters but....

Rick - I think you're doing the right thing. However, maybe you could make some exceptions for your route developers (like Kipp) who have good dogs, follow the leash rule, and contribute heavily to the greater good of Muir Valley. Maybe a dog pass like the car pass?

Or not.
But I know I'd hate to lose Kipp's contributions.

Artsay,

Your opinion, and those of the many responsible dog owners who visit MV, do matter. Liz and I discussed the dog situation with many of you over the past year. We appreciate the suggestions and concern. We seriously considered a dog permit for responsible owners, but became convinced that it would be impossible to manage. It would also create a lot of hard feelings, as everyone thinks his pet is not one of the trouble causers. Would any of you like to be the "good dog/bad dog" judge and enforcer?

This was not a snap decision. We do like dogs. As many of you know, we brought the subject up several on this forum seeking help and cooperation, only to have the thread taken off into Bawdy-banterland.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Rick and Liz

Post by **fray21** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:01 pm

A little off topic from the thread. For that I apologize, but when did it become cool to talk about beating dogs and the such.

512OW wrote:

EXACTLY my point. Idiots like you want their dogs treated like people... then get upset when they are.

It always makes me laugh when someone threatens to kick dogs, "make them leave on a stretcher". It takes a big man to do such a thing. Remember that its the dog owner that is in the wrong, not the dog, they are the one that you should have a problem with. Use some common sense! Dogs are not people, their owners are responsible for their actions.

512OW wrote:

If you did the same... you'd leave the same.

Now your getting it right, I can defend myself.

Think about it in this light. How would you like it if someone made the same claim about your daughter that you made about dogs??

Also, I clump together guys that hit dogs with those that hit females and kids. Do you hit your girlfriend??

Don't make such ridiculous statements .... man your dog "will be sent away on a stretcher". Save them for you ridiculous songs.

Chris

I don't know, O-dub is smaller than a lot of girls. Would defending your self against him clump you in with guys that beat femals??

Post by **kirker** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:27 pm

Just a thought, but rather than banning dogs from Muir all together. Maybe ban them from or only allow them in certain areas, and/or certain times of the year.

Post by **anticlmber** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:46 pm

people didn't respect the leash rule what makes you think they would follow that rule. thaey are allowed in certain areas. it's called a yard. and what's with people that bring their dogs INTO miquels.

Post by **kirker** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:59 pm

anticlmber wrote:people didn't respect the leash rule what makes you think they would follow that rule. thaey are allowed in certain areas. it's called a yard. and what's with people that bring their dogs INTO miquels.

You'll have to look at the whole forest instead the tree right in front of you to see the possiblities in the idea.

Post by **anticlmber** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:05 pm

can't see the forest all the dogs have destroyed it. maybe when the forest service bans dogs or closes climbing, maybe then people will start giving a rat's ass. doubt it though.

Pru · Post by **Pru** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:10 pm

The FS will never ban dogs unless they ban hunting first.

People who feel inclined to whine about this ban need to remember that there are a shit ton of places you can take your dog climbing in the RRG area, ill behaved or not. In fact, I've even seen dumbasses with dog-aggressive dogs off leash at climbing areas that do allow dogs.