The Oregon legislature is considering a law which would require climbers to bring a black lab with them on all climbs. Or at least a locator beacon.

In all seriousness, though. I'm not sure what to make of the story of three climbers who were rescued Monday on Mount Hood. The party had rescue beacons and a black lab with them during their winter attempt of the summit, which turned bad after the three took a fall in stormy conditions. According to various media reports, the climbers were successfully rescued after spending one night on the mountain with their trusty pooch.

The rescue comes as the Oregon legislature considers requiring all climbers to carry Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs). There's no doubt that PLBs can be of great assistance to search and rescue teams. But the units are expensive, and I'm concerned that the media and legislators are focusing on technology such as beacons, GPS, and cell phones at the expense of other  preventative measures. Just as important as a locator gizmo is having the correct gear (the ten essentials and more), planning ahead, and getting adequate training and knowledge for the outdoor activity you're pursuing--whether it's climbing, snowshoeing, or hiking.

And okay, as helpful as the dog was to the climbers (and please note that early media reports that the dog "saved" their lives is almost certainly an exaggeration) I have a real problem with these folks taking a dog up on a glacier above 10,000 feet.

Dogs are not human, and I don't care how much you love dear Fido. Canines don't belong in some places--the summits of glaciated peaks, on national park trails, and off leash in areas where kids and dogs are likely to run into one another. It's about responsibility, folks. And dog owners have a duty to protect their pooches as well as handle them in a responsible manner.

OK there's my rant. No doubt someone will comment...

Photo of Mount Hood courtesy of WTA member Darryl Lloyd (copyright 2007 Darryl Lloyd).

The usual pathetic anti-dog excuses aren't even applicable on a snow-covered mountain in the middle of winter: there is no wildlife to disturb, there aren't crowds of dog-fearing hikers to frighten, there aren't other dogs to tangle with, no ill effect on the dog from walking in snow, nothing.

It is completely reasonable to bring a dog on such a hike. It was clear that the dog helped these three people survive.

You might recall that the first expedition to the South Pole relied on dogs to carry gear and as food. There is no reason a modern expedition, by anyone, anywhere, might choose to do the same thing.

Is there any sense of freedom left in this country?

Yes, because an impulsive, over-excited labrador retriever is the first thing I want tied to me as I make a technical climb! 'Hey Velvet, there goes a Ptarmigan, go get it girl! Go geeeee..." [insert thud of climbers here]

Bringing a *labrador retriever* along to summit an ice-covered peak fits right in with the overall profile of these people as being ill-prepared and careless. A snow-covered mountain in the middle of winter is the last place for a domestic animal, much less one that was bred to jump after waterfowl.

While I didn't have the reaction to this story that Andrew had, I do empathize with his position. First let's make a few clear points here. I love dogs. I wrote a book on them. I believe that when properly trained they make wonderful hiking companions. However-I agree with Andrew-they just don't belong everywhere-and too many owners are irresponsible. As much as I enjoy pooches, I don't appreciate being accosted by them in areas that are specifically targeted as pets MUST be leashed. I swear that this is a law that far too many Northwesterners can't comprehend. It is inconsiderate to other trail users and unfair to the dog (he doesn't know the law) for selfish pet-owners to disregard these regulations (and laws). As far as Dis'd's remarks-c'mon! Regulations are needed-do you want motorcycles on every trail too? With 6.4 million Washingtonians we all need to compromise a little to share space. Dogs are one area where some (operative word is SOME) regulations are needed. With all that said-I'm still impressed at the hardiness of that Hood bound hound.

The news about the dog is puzzling. Any word if this pup is a guide dog? I've been meeting more people on the trail with physical conditions that might warrant a guide dog. Don't get me wrong. These people are fit and taking on challenging trails with friends and appropriate gear. In some cases national park rules might allow guide dogs in most areas.

Much as I love dogs (and my lab-pit mix), why would I put her in danger on the harsh conditions of a mountain like Mt Hood? The glaciers and snow are NOT the natural environment of a dog . . . so I agree with Andy here, despite the fact that 'stealing' the dogs warmth probably saved their lives.

But a bigger concern here is all this emphasis on GPS-enabled cell phones that have been mentioned in all three major Mt Hood incidents this years (this group also had MLBs which is fortunate but the media has been focussing on locking onto signals provided by cell phones (the so-called E911 service mandated by the FCC.)

I consider a cell phone - GPS-enabled or not - to be my most unreliable emergency device while I'm deep in the woods. But we now have seasoned hikers believing that in an emergency in the wilderness that rescuers can lock onto GPS locator information sent out by their cell phone despite being unable to make a cellphone call! There is a devious misunderstanding of the capability of the technologies involved here. Cell phones with embedded GPS chips (any phone sold in the last year) can only compute position when locked onto a cell tower (known as differential or assisted GPS) and, any transmission of their position relies on that same cell tower coverage (few and far between in the wild). If you can't connect to a cell tower you simply cannot transmit your GPS-derived position to rescuers! You can't even compute you position effectively because that requires a connection to cell tower!

Mt Hood is blessed to have reasonably good cell phone coverage (elevation and line of sight to cell towers). The deep forested river valleys I hike and snowshoe in are not so lucky and any reliance that a simple pressing of the 911 button on my cell phone will give my location to rescuers is a false hope. That is my fear . . . that people have come to believe that cell phones are a panecia in the event of an emergency.

Rick

Oh that's right. As long as the dog was wearing crampons as well, and knew how to self-arrest with an ice-axe, no problem. Otherwise, this could very well be seen as animal abuse.

Animal abuse to take a dog onto snow? Absurd. Dogs walk quite well on steep snow, they have built-in "crampons" also called "claws". Calling everything a pet owner might want to do with their pet "animal abuse" is chilling overuse of the legal system. Is it "animal abuse" for dog mushers? No. Are the famed St. Bernards being subject to "animal abuse"? No. Is there some ridiculous bar of "training" an ownership must complete prior to being allowed to take a dog into hiking conditions of their choosing? No!

Let's address this issue of dogs on public land. There are millions of acres of public land in Washington state. A few dogs, off leash, in these millions of acres is virtually never a real problem. The prohibitions against dogs is merely for the effete sensibilities of a few. The proof of that is that the dog prohibitions extend into virtually all of the millions of acres of public land in addition to simply just the more heavily used trails and campsites. That shows the unreasonableness of the prohibitions.

for dis'd: "famed" St Bernards and mushers have been bred for generations, and are trained for what they do.

For general readers. Perhaps this dog has extensive training for ice travel as well - I don't know. Simply hiking with a dog requires extra consideration; climbing even more so. I wouldn't join a team that included a dog. I don't mind risking my life for a human team member. But someone elses dog? So the dog slips and I'm supposed to risk my life arresting, or be taken down with it? That's not for me. But climbers know what's expected of them, and if that was this team's choice, so be it. But if a dog creates a hazard and an accident ensues resulting in a SAR deployment, that would make me a little angry.

But I've seen dogs with bloody, cracked paws on extensive snow trips, and that can't be fun for the dog.

I hope there was a doggie blue bag along with the climbers, and plenty of water for the dog.

Do dogs get altitude sickness?

Dis'd, so you consider a busy Saturday at Fragrance Lake where I counted 12 off leash dogs including two menacing charging pit-bulls not to be a problem? A mere inconvenience for law-abiding hikers. Every dog owner I encountered this one particular day except for a hiker from Vermont had thier dog off leash against state park rules and regulations. But I guess these regulations are unnecessary according to you. I suppose then I'll have a campfire above tree line, wash my dishes in a stream and take my mountain bike into the Enchantments. None of these acts create any real problems after all. Sheesh!