Topic

Canine thru-hike of CDT


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Campfire On the Web Canine thru-hike of CDT

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 89 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2063893
    Dave T
    Member

    @davet

    Looks like she might be planning on the PCT in 2015. I wonder if she'll be working the same (presumed) crap in our National and State Parks here.

    #2063909
    Ian
    BPL Member

    @10-7

    "I wonder if she'll be working the same (presumed) crap in our National and State Parks here."

    For the sake of her dog, I hope not. It's heartbreaking when their hips/joints go bad and I think it's almost begging for trouble. I know dogs are capable of some pretty incredible things, like the Iditarod, so maybe it's doable but sounds like a bad idea to me.

    #2063915
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    >" I know dogs are capable of some pretty incredible things, like the Iditarod, so maybe it's doable but sounds like a bad idea to me."

    +1

    No one is taking a AKC purebred on the Iditarod. Hybrid vigor is real and significant. Creating a working dog breed often creates/concentrates some congenital issues. All breeders chasing the same "breed standard" does so even more.

    Iditarod dogs always have some northern breed (husky, village sled dog, malamute, etc) for cold tolerance, plus some hound for runniness, and can have bits of retriever, or other breeds. Some washouts become pets, some get shot, some get drowned, but the ones that prove out run 2,000-3,000 miles in training before each Iditarod, then run 1,050 miles to Nome and often do it again, year after year.

    Taking some rebranded German Shepard on thousands of miles of trail is a stunt, not a kindness.

    #2064167
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    Posted on the RuffWare site

    "Yes Grizby is a service dog (medical alert). He (although it’s not required) has been certified and we continue to train him for his task. He is NOT an emotional support animal. I do not condone or recommend anyone trying to fake a dog as a service dog as it’s a federal offense. For those looking to do a thru hike of the CDT with a pet dog I encourage you to find alternative routes that will take you around any areas where dogs are prohibited. … I realize there is a huge issue with people faking service dogs and causing issues for those who legitimately need their dog for their disability."

    To which I say "Thank You", for the clarification.

    #2064273
    Tony Ronco
    BPL Member

    @tr-browsing

    hmm, IMHO I still have a healthy amount of skepticism. I disconcertingly find both her blog & the Ruffwear article as promotion of taking dogs on the trail (and boasted they believed that Grizby was the first dog to complete a thru-hike of the CDT) … and from the Ruffwear comments there is an implicit promotion of what could be generously labeled as "working the system"

    Here are several of the reasons I take this view:

    1.) Ms. Soxman had zero disclosure in her CDT blog about her dog being a service dog (and she blogs about other dogs on the trail with her. She also blogs about going into Yellowstone NP with another hiker's dog companion)

    2.) Ruffwear had zero disclosure in body of their article

    3.) Ms. Soxman lists her occupation as a dog trainer (in her Google+ link). So she is A.) a dog enthusiast so wants her pet to be with her, and B.) one that knows how the system works.

    4.) It is relatively easy to get a dog "certified" / "registered" for such an identification.

    5.) Most training programs take a full 2 years for completion (yet her dog was on the trail in August when it had its 2 year birthday)

    6.) Ms. Soxman only posted her delayed response after a flurry of questioning comments on the Ruffwear article.

    Now, given current ADA regulations there is no way to ever know (See #4) … she has answered what's required of her: Service dog (yes) and reason for it (Medical Alert) – vague & ambiguous, yes : but that response IS sufficiently compliant

    So the skepticism remains because it is easy to conclude that she has simply worked the system to allow her to take her dog with her on her CDT hike.
    I think her delayed response took so long because it needed to be carefully crafted to pacify the folks who commented Ruffwear article & who questioned the legitimacy of the reason. She was probably surprised by the feedback, but she brought this on to herself.

    Never the less, a blueprint has been outlined on how "work the system" for others wishing to take their pet dog on their thru-hikes.

    FYI:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_response_dog
    Here is a bit of trivia for one example of a medical response dogs ("alert dogs") … IF her alert dog is for diabetes (To detect hypoglycemic / hyperglycemic conditions … mainly for folks with "brittle diabetes" (= erratic glucose levels) then she isn't following protocol for such an athletic application (i.e. backpacking where the activity conditions call more for the use of a CGM (Continuous Glucose Monitor)- this is because it provides glucose level trending which allow a person to catch abnormal conditions early before they become problematic … a medical response dog can't do that).

    #2064423
    Dave T
    Member

    @davet

    "IMHO I still have a healthy amount of skepticism."

    Yes, I still am convinced this is a scam, for all the reasons so well elucidated above.

    Sure hope she isn't planning the same in 2015 PCT. If I were a betting man, I'd say she'll be walking through our state and national parks with a scam "service dog."

    #2064442
    Buck Nelson
    BPL Member

    @colter

    Locale: Alaska

    She answered the questions. Speculation that she's working the system is only speculation, it's not enough to publicly smear someone's reputation especially when it might be completely legit.

    #2064458
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    Buck,

    Remember when our Senator said, "I paid all the bills they sent me."? Yes, there was prosecutorial misconduct, but he still clearly accepted bribes from Veco but was no longer mentally agile enough to hide the evidence. And I knew it as soon he he uttered such an incomplete and lame explanation.

    Where else but Alaska can you buy a US Senator for a deck and a Barcalounger?

    Similarly, Ms. Soxman's explanation leaves this tiny, tiny slice of possibly legitimate service-dog use (the young dog somehow alerts her to some pending epileptic fit, diabetes crisis, or over-whelming need for caffeine in the morning) without just describing the actual legitimate need and how a blood-glucose monitor or a packet of No-Dozs couldn't serve as well or better. But her minimal words strongly suggest abuse of the system: the "service dog" is a service dog in training, the dog's alert skills aren't for the hikers in question, the alert is for some trivial event (he alerts upon seeing jack rabbits which could of course be rabid and infect the human hikers) or for something totally outside of ADA (he would alert if the owner were attacked) which anyone's dog would do.

    When you put yourself out to the world as having done this amazing event, more so when you put your dog out there as having done this apparently illegal but otherwise amazing thing, in my mind, you should get in front of the obvious questions about why you and your dog get to do this wonderful activity that law-abiding people don't get to do.

    I like to hike with my dog. She'd love to do long backpacking trips in National Parks. But like playing loud music, hacking down live trees, harassing wildlife, having campfires above tree line, and letting the bears get my food, there are things I'm not (and shouldn't) be allowed to do on public lands.

    #2064463
    Buck Nelson
    BPL Member

    @colter

    Locale: Alaska

    If you were on a jury would you vote "guilty" based on the evidence to this point?

    #2064466
    Steve M
    BPL Member

    @steve-2

    Locale: Eastern Washington

    I'm with David on this one. Pretty obvious that the Park Service got scammed.

    #2064468
    Marko Botsaris
    BPL Member

    @millonas

    Locale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA

    "If you were on a jury would you vote "guilty" based on the evidence to this point?"

    Seems like there is some serious circumstantial evidence. If you are going to brag about it on your blog, particularly as a "first" when other people, like Justin Lichter, have done it, in so far as is possible *within* the rules, then I guess you can expect people to wonder.

    Personally I would have been MUCH more impressed if she in fact did the CDT with ANY of the *legitimate* medical conditions that would truly warrant a medical service dog. While the *authorities* are not legally allowed to ask, that doesn't mean we can't, or even say "j'accuse". As I said, why not brag about doing it with the medical conditions, and give hope to those folks? A much more noble cause IMO. It would indeed be annoying to have park ranger trying to verify medical conditions on the trail, so the law is fine in my book. But with her not saying specifically more about it, I think it is totally justified for most to conclude what she means by a "medical service dog" is that she has winkingly obeyed the technical letter of the law while in fact violating the spirit. As David said, when someone's only response is "I obeyed the letter of the law, and encourage other to do likewise", without additional detail, what else are we to assume. If we are wrong in this guess, then I'd love to hear about it. As I said, I think THAT is a far better story than "dog walks CDT".

    Until such time as this is cleared up, to me it becomes, on the contrary, a story of a member of the online me-generation wanting to get praise or attention for doing something special, while at the same time showing she is missing a bit of respect for and understanding of the value of preservation of the very wilderness she traveled through. I think it would have been better for her, in that case, to have done it with the "the rules don't apply to me – I have a mail order patch for my dog" attitude and NOT gone online to talk about it afterwards. By doing so, in the absence of discussion of why she needs a medical service dog, it kind of becomes to me a story of a woman that does't fully "get it" – of cluelessness at best, or at worst hypocracy. That is a shame.

    As is, she has publicly backed herself into a corner – she has publicly bragged about the trip. Even if the dog is technically a service dog, to admit that she has no medical condition that required the dog to be on the trail with her will subject her to legitimate ridicule at best, both from the handicapped community and from the people who support preservation of our wild areas. On the other had if she does have a condition that warrants it, to admit this would be much more impressive, and possibly even a public service. The only other explanation that a person that blogs about herself in such detail is somehow so private about this one issue she will not only not reveal her disability, even though it might be of benefit for others in her condition to know what she accomplished, but will not say "I have a disability that was serviced by this dog", and leave it at that. Her only response is that "this is a service dog".

    So yeah, seems extremely likely that she did exactly what most of us think she did. I think I would vote for guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" basis, though she clearly still can take shelter on the "beyond all doubt" technicality.

    The dog doesn't really need or warrant the "record". Not so impressed that a *dog* can do it, a beast that has the genetic heritage of pack animals that can literally run for 48 hours straight until a large heard animal falls over in exhaustion. Dogs store extra blood in their liver, btw, and this give them tremendous endurance, even without the use of EPO.

    Equally not so unambiguously impressed by a dog owner bringing their dog along that far. As some implied above, she had a choice, but the dog didn't and may pay for it in later life. Not all dog breeds would be equipt to handle this without long term consequences. In which case I suppose there is an argument it could also be construed as a story about "loyal hound puts up with clueless master for over 3000 miles." LOL

    #2064494
    Eric Johnson
    BPL Member

    @unimog

    Locale: Utah

    If we were on a jury, she would have the chance to defend herself with all valid evidence that reasonable people would understand…. Wait, there has been controversy raised and she has had a chance to be clear and convincing about this. It appears she has chosen to be ambiguous leaving the jury to determine what they will from the facts. Seems to me she has brought this controversy on herself.

    #2064521
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    >"she has had a chance to be clear and convincing about this."

    +1

    >"If we were on a jury, she would have the chance to defend herself with all valid evidence"

    She's had that chance. Unless her mysterious disability somehow prevents her typing on a keyboard (but somehow with the wonderous assistance of her canine companion she can hike thousand of miles, while rescuing her "service dog" from rivers, tending the dog's feet, and carrying the dog's food).

    And, in the court of public opinion, she has taken the "4-1/2". By which I mean she hasn't "taken the 5th" and said nothing. Nor has she taken the stand and been compelled under penalty of perjury to answer all questions put to her. She's thrown out a very weak explanation through someone else (heresy isn't admissible in an actual court) and not addressed the valid questions/concerns put forth. She's hiked thousands of miles and yet hides behind the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    No one is proposing to jail her. This isn't a criminal proceeding (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If it were a civil proceeding, the standard would be "a preponderance of evidence". O.J. fell in between those standards. He was acquitted (NOT found innocent) in the criminal proceedings, but liable in the civil proceedings. OJ walks free. Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman are both, still, quite dead. Ms. Soxman still walks freely through through National Parks. I hope her pet is not allowed the same freedom in those public lands we collectively try the hardest to protect.

    #2064600
    Valerie E
    Spectator

    @wildtowner

    Locale: Grand Canyon State

    Ahhhh, America, where the rights of the individual ALWAYS seem to triumph over the rights of the collective! If something inconveniences ONE handicapped person in the slightest, we immediately scramble to change all laws/regulations so that person can now inconvenience the rest of the 300 million people! ;~)

    Well argued, David and Mark — if you blog about your life, please don't expect to hide behind "privacy" arguments when folks have questions about what you've written.

    In law, the issue of "bad character" cannot be brought out by the prosecution — BUT (and it's a big "but") — if the defense brings in evidence of "good character", the prosecution can then respond with all their evidence of bad character! In law school, we call that "opening the door" to the character issue.

    Of course, this isn't a criminal proceeding — but I think the analogy applies…

    Her original "service dog" claim certainly raised questions, and her response to those questions raises more doubt. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…?

    #2064627
    Tony Ronco
    BPL Member

    @tr-browsing

    > "Her original "service dog" claim certainly raised questions, and her response to those questions raises more doubt. "

    Just a clarification:
    She never claimed or disclosed that her pet was a "service dog" UNTIL she responded to the questions raised from the Ruffwear article.

    What she did originally claim was this: That she thought her pet was the first dog to complete a CDT thru-hike.

    As Mark points out, if she does face physical challenges that a medical response dog would be required, THAT would have been much more inspirational story to others, than trying to claim a bit of fame by having the first dog to complete a CDT thru-hike.

    >"David and Mark — if you blog about your life, please don't expect to hide behind 'privacy' arguments when folks have questions about what you've written."

    Is it just me, or does it seem that "blog about your life" but having a "privacy" expectation is a bit of an oxymoron?

    #2064635
    Valerie E
    Spectator

    @wildtowner

    Locale: Grand Canyon State

    Yikes — I thought I was being clear, but Tony seems to have misunderstood me 310%!!!!!!

    Please allow me to correct:

    Firstly, the "blogging about your personal life" remark was NOT addressed to David and Mark. Repeat, not addressed to them; it was addressed to the dog's owner. To my knowledge, neither David nor Mark has a blog.

    >Just a clarification:
    >She never claimed or disclosed that her pet was a "service dog" UNTIL she responded >to the questions raised from the Ruffwear article.

    >What she did originally claim was this: That she thought her pet was the first dog >to complete a CDT thru-hike.

    OK, fine. I don't really think that changes the arguments, and since another dog (Yoni) already did the CDT legally (book published about that trip); it makes Bethany's claims even more suspect!

    >Is it just me, or does it seem that "blog about your life" but having a "privacy" >expectation is a bit of an oxymoron?

    Ummmmmm, I think you're agreeing with me?

    #2064638
    Tony Ronco
    BPL Member

    @tr-browsing

    Valerie – Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    #2064652
    Valerie E
    Spectator

    @wildtowner

    Locale: Grand Canyon State

    Tony, sorry for my original comment being too vague. One should never post in a hurry; had I re-read it more carefully, I might have spotted the confusing grammar.

    Lesson learned (I hope). ;~)

    #2064663
    Marko Botsaris
    BPL Member

    @millonas

    Locale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA

    Hey Valerie,

    Was clear to me what you meant all along, especially after reading you prior post, so no worries.

    I am always worried about appearing to be "shrill" about an issue, so I tried to be especially clear, though long-winded, in my post above. After I wrote it I read some of David's post on the ruffwear site, and he had already said most up what I had said in that long winded one.

    I definitely wouldn't want to unduly attack someone's character. Let me just say that in case we have been discussing, even if the worst we suspect is true, it is not really grounds to suspect her ultimate character is in question – more like her judgment. It is more like one of this political scandals where the cover up is worse than the original violation.

    It would mostly be a bit embarrassing. It sound like the dog may in fact be by the vague letter of the law a "service dog" which probably gives her legal cover. Its just she never answered the relevant question of what service the dog performs. She did say it retrieves gloves from the other side of a river, yet I don't think this qualifies. It would be so easy to reveal this, and she should be proud of her dog for learning how to do it, and herself for teaching it. The only conclusion is that the answer (which she would have apparently even been legally required to give to a ranger) would not reflect favorably on her – i.e. it is not trained to do anything useful for HER medically, or that it does something for which there is a much simpler solution if you really care about the environment. That's all. I'm sure she is a perfectly nice person, and many of us I'm sure have fudged the truth here and there in our lives. However the issues, as have been brought up at length above, are not trivial either w/respect to the effect such "cheating" has on other people with real needs, or w/respect to the environmental issues and attitudes involved.

    So I believe THAT is why many of us think it is important. I wouldn't have any desire for her reputation to be harmed in any way out of this. I hope she does do the PCT, and this time finds other arraignments for the parts where dogs are not allowed. And I hope this time she also writes about the issues we have been discussing, understands them better, and makes a public contribution to the discussion by serving as an example of how to responsibly treat the issue of dogs in national parks, rather than as a probable example of the problem.

    #2064664
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    I would be surprised if Bethany knows this dialogue is going on.

    No one posting over a RuffWear has mentioned this forum…

    #2064665
    Marko Botsaris
    BPL Member

    @millonas

    Locale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA

    Still over there, thanks to David and others, the issue are still absolutely clear.

    #2064706
    J-L
    BPL Member

    @johnnyh88

    Where do you people go? I rarely see service dogs and most times they are obviously guide dogs for the blind. I have never seen a service dog in what I thought to be a non-service position and I have never seen a dog on a plane (except for small ones in crates which are allowed). Dave Thomas writes as if this an epidemic sweeping the nation.

    I don't hike with my dog where it's not allowed and I think the no dogs policy on National Park trails should be respected, but environmental damage? Yes, there may be some, but I think people make far larger impacts than dogs, not to mention the endless piles of crap from horses or mules in National Parks like Yosemite.

    #2065764
    Jennifer Mitol
    Spectator

    @jenmitol

    Locale: In my dreams....

    Who wants to start arguing about dogs on trails??!!! C'mon, you know you want to!!!!

    Seriously, since when do dogs cause more inconvenience to other hikers or more damage than pack animals? The horse trains of people who don't want to walk and who don't want to carry their stuff the 12 miles to camp…..

    As someone who takes hiking with my dog very seriously, I find these conversations very interesting. Yes, there are awful dogs and awful owners out there…but there are also awful hikers, heavy horses, people who #2 on the trail, leave toilet paper nastiness, etc. I'm just not sure how a few dogs on trails every now and then is any worse than all of that……..

    #2065778
    spelt with a t
    BPL Member

    @spelt

    Locale: Rangeley, ME

    This thread seems like it has become less about the dog and more about feeling entitled to a stranger's medical information.

    #2065804
    Dave T
    Member

    @davet

    This thread is not about dogs on the trail, it's about dogs on the trail where they are not allowed.

    And this thread is not about access to medical info, it's about the misuse of "service dog" labeling to disregard rules. They are related, but only in the sense that I can buy an Ebay badge, take my dog into Glacier, and say "it's a service dog trained for medical alert" when a ranger asks me, and keep walking.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 89 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...