Canine thru-hike of CDT

This thread is very much about wanting the woman to say what her disability is to prove that it is "real." Too bad that regs do not require that. We will never know.

If there are people with "real" disabilities that are being hurt by service dog scams I would like to hear from them.

I read the blog and started to get all up in arms about dogs on the trail, then I saw that she is pretty attractive. So, I decided to give her a pass.

Keep on keepin' on Bethaney.

Ryan

The thread is also about her and one of her sponsors celebrating her dog on the trail (and other dogs) in areas in which they are forbidden, without any explanation (until pressed) about why it is happening. I don't think it's good to do this, just like I would oppose someone's blog celebrating some other (apparent) breaking of the rules which are put in place by NPS (or other park units).

Two weeks ago my friend and I were On a classic ski tour from Breckinridge to Frisco. Ten miles of amazing powder and the route even crosses the CT/CDT.

As with many hikes and skis in Summit county, it is very easy to do a one way trip. Park at one end and take the free shuttle bus back to your car. Awesome!

On the trip, my friend and I bumped into a nice gentleman who often does the same ski tour we were on. He mentioned that if you get a service dog vest online, you can bring your dog on the bus. No questions asked. I just nodded and smiled. Not worth a debate on such a wonderful day.

So, that is why I think many of us are a bit disappointed in possible abuses of the ADA clauses. A service dog to assist a person who has a legitimate issues is wonderful. A person getting a vest to exploit a loophole for convenience? Not so much.

I am not sure what the case is with the CDT hiker in question. But the abuse is real. Saw it myself once and then this discussion I had with an anon Skier on the trail.

Right on, Dave T! Exactly. Too bad some of the folks are being so literal about what is being discussed. Society choosing to allow someone a special privilege because they have special needs is ENTIRELY different from someone unilaterally TAKING that privilege whenever they feel like it (and without the "special needs" that predicated the special privilege!).

Someone expressed doubt that any "real" disabled person is suffering from all the fake service dogs out there… Maybe not yet, but as more and more FAKE service dogs are paraded around, I suspect the rules/enforcement will begin to be tightened, thereby causing REAL inconveniences to "real" disabled people. Truth be told, the types of people who think that they're "above following the rules" are also going to be the type of people who don't think that they have to clean up after their dogs! Exact. same. entitlement. philosophy.

A certain percentage of people scam the systems. It just happens. At least we are not talking about the excesses on the scale of the banks and the housing bubble.

I take the Kantian approach to the ethics of the problem – what would the world be like if everyone acted according to your ethics. If everyone acted according to the view that it doesn't matter, then it would have a very bad effect. I don't personally get to decide the threshold either. Unlike some people I usually admit to not having knowledge of what will be good or bad based on 30 seconds uneducated reflection based on my limited experience, and heavily biased towards my selfish desires.

Like I said before, I rely on the local custodians (in this case the NPS, and their teams of biologists etc.) to decide what kinds of things are damaging, and then follow their guidelines. Are they always perfect – no. More informed that I am – almost always.

For example in Utah there are crypto-biotic crusts on the surface that are in fact the main bootstrapping method for nutrient fixation for the surface soil, and therefore the main means for maintaining vegetative life in some areas. If you make a footprint in these soils, you can insure that nothing will grow there for 100 years. But if you are some ignorant yahoo that looks at a sign that explains this, and then decides "oh, I know better, its only one set of footprints", in other words "the rules don't apply to me" then you will in fact kill an area of soil for decades with each footstep, whether you get it our not. Still worse if the yahoo magnifies the damage by bringing their dog. Would I have known that from 30 second selfish contemplation? no.

What does it matter if some other yahoos on a train 100 years ago kill 1000 buffalo for "sport" by shooting out the windows. There are millions of them.

Again, how would the world work if EVERYONE followed your ethics? I would follow even a bad rule on that basis, if I believed the rule did not do obvious harm, as long at there were good rules in an area as well. Likewise you shold not decide the issue on the effect YOU have. You have to consider how many people use a certain area, and what would happen if everyone did as you do. Otherwise IMHO you have a very flabby, almost useless ethics.

I'm not totally condemning this person – we all make ethical mistakes. As was stated above by several people, she magnified her probable abuse of the rules by not only posting it and implicitly demonstrating to many others how to twist the rules, but by getting the additional media support from Ruffwear to concentrate the message. Our little set of posts here is just a very tiny patch on that larger ethical issue.

I'd like to hear her amend her message to say that "unless a person has an actual medical NEED for a support dog, and unless that need has no easily obtainable alternative that is less potentially invasive, they should not bring a dog into a NP." Can anyone argue that this is not the spirit of the law? I think not. If she said that explicitly I would let drop the issue whether she herself followed those rules as being far less important.

Disappointed. I thought the dog did the solo through hike. No story here.

CrossroadsPetResort.com,
12 Oct 2013 [cached]

"Bethany Soxman is a full-time staff trainer working in all facets of our training program. She currently has two rescue dogs; a Pitbull/Shepherd mix and a Belgian Malinois with whom she currently competes with in French Ring Sport. She has first hand experience with aggression, having to overcome some behavioral issues with her Malinois, so she can relate to owners with similar problems and enjoys helping owners rehabilitate their own dogs. Along with the other trainers, she is always expanding her knowledge by studying and attending seminars by top trainers."

No mention of "service dog" training, knowledge, experience….

Talk about a trial in absentia.

Personally, I like dogs and couldn't care less about whether she is exploiting a loophole or not.

Just a point of order, apparently a long time ago the NPS decided, as far as I can tell, that horses would only be allowed on a few high-use trails, and on those by either by NPS personnel, or through well regulated means, also controlled by the NPS. The horses usually have…uhem.. not sure of the technical terminology … poo bags. Unfortunately they do miss. These high use trails, such as Bright Angel in GC and the trails that support the High Sierra camps in Yosemite ARE a bit of a mess, it is true, but they are also obsessively maintained. But the NPS knows where they go and rigidly controls them. Horses and Mules are NOT allowed to go willy-nilly on most trail in NPs, as far as I have ever experienced. But to speak of huge piles of shit everywhere in National Parks is just ignorant.

As for the Jackasses of the human variety, well I wish they would ban them and their shit too, but I digress.

Also, full disclosure, I do love dogs. If the NPS wanted to let dogs on those high-use trails I'd be for it, especially if they were all as nice as Jennifer's dog – who, I have it on good authority, is a sweetie whose poo smells like cinnamon rolls and causes wildflowers to spring from the ground. If they do not, I suspect it is due to the fact they have intelligently figured out that THAT is one rule (stay on these trails) that would be immediately violated, opening a can of worms. But all is well, that is why we have a ton more land area than NP (about 4.3 times as much area) called "National Forests" (also Most of the PCT and CDT) for both good and bad dogs to go backpacking.

FWIW, the arguments based on, "lots of other people do destructive things therefore I should be able too" is pretty lame, especially when many of the examples mentioned are already against the rules, and a fine-able offenses. However, at least not as lame as the "I don't care" argument.

For the few of you who can't figure out how things effect the handicapped, let me connect the dots for you (or you could try to find out why handicapped organizations are so sanguine about this issue) – (1) laws made to accommodate the handicapped. (2) people abuse rules who are not handicapped. (3) Abuse leads to such problems that original law has to be enforced *rigidly*. (4) Handicapped people have to constantly prove that they have a legitimate handicap – maybe we should just get them all tattooed on the forehead, it would save the rangers oh so much trouble. Not getting this is just another example of an uninformed conclusion based on 30 seconds of thought, and not much else.

@Ryan, Yes she is cute, but let me just inform you that you have no chance. Realizing this I hope will be enough to bring you back into the accepting fold of our "dog hating" camp.

"But to speak of huge piles of shit everywhere in National Parks is just ignorant."

Come to Glacier in high summer.

"Come to Glacier in high summer."

OK, well that sucks.

>>For the few of you who can't figure out how things effect the handicapped, let me connect the dots for you (or you could try to find out why handicapped organizations are so sanguine about this issue) – (1) laws made to accommodate the handicapped. (2) people abuse rules who are not handicapped. (3) Abuse leads to such problems that original law has to be enforced *rigidly*. (4) Handicapped people have to constantly prove that they have a legitimate handicap – maybe we should just get them all tattooed on the forehead, it would save the rangers oh so much trouble. Not getting this is just another example of an uninformed conclusion based on 30 seconds of thought, and not much else.

Oh bullshit. "Abuse leads to such problems that original law has to be enforced *rigidly*." What problems? The law was made to benefit disabled people. Unless actual disabled people are being hurt by abuses to the law, "such problems" is limited to a bunch of non-disabled people getting angry over speculation.

"Handicapped people have to constantly prove that they have a legitimate handicap" If you are positing this as an example of a negative outcome of abuse of the law, I hate to tell you, but abuse or not, unless you are in a wheelchair bound 24/7 with a visible colostomy bag you are constantly going to have people believing you are faking it. Someone in my town has a minivan with a chairlift kit and a handicapped custom plate that says FAKER. "Maybe we should just get them all tattooed on the forehead, it would save the rangers oh so much trouble." Well it would certainly save most of the people on this thread a lot of angst. Your argument for how this might hurt disabled people is that they might have to do something…something they already have to do all the time.

By all means carry on with the witch hunt, but let's not pretend this is about the welfare of disabled people in any way. The white-knighting is distasteful.

Looks, like I said, just look at what the disabled organizations say about it, and ignore me. At least consider there may be something you aren't getting for a few minutes. Since a bunch of people beside me here have been saying similar things, as well as the postings even by the Ruffwear staff, you might at least postpone your simplified analysis.

Its not necessarily where the problem is at the moment, but where the problem tends to go, based on the precedents. It also not about people looking at them and wondering "are they cheating" – that's ridiculous. It is *always* about access – access to public buildings and facilities – access to public life, with a minimum of unnecessary hassle.

It seem silly to have to explain this to someone in such detail at this point in history, but if the system of one-time certification fails (yes, because of cheating) then to make use of the public accommodations handicapped people with have to have their certification checked constantly, something they DO NOT at present because of ADA and SHOULD NOT have to do all the time. That is not same thing as reasonable accommodation.

One historical precedent is back when to get into a building, including public ones such as courts, post offices and so on, they had to be helped, often by contacting and waiting for someone who works in the building. Go to do the next thing down town – rinse and repeat. That issue was at the core of the ADA. That was not reasonable accommodation.

The possible analog of this in the present case – for every person with a medically required service dog to have to get "helped" into a facility or area by proving in person with papers at some office the entrance to every building, park (god forbid trail head) etc. to reacquire new credentials (e.g. an official NPS service dog tag) that aren't so abused by cheaters as to become meaningless.

But don't take my word for it. Think it through for yourself, and think about the burden of people who need the exceptions, and think about how their life gets changed if any of their access gets (serially) less accommodating.

A bunch of people who don't get to take their dog somewhere are upset b/c someone took their dog somewhere and they've decided she didn't deserve to. There are assumptions and speculation and it's ugly to see from a bunch of normally fair-minded people. Whatever, I'm out of this thread.

Well Mark, I guess this one is over, since this specific and focused conversation has run up against someone with a big agenda of some kind. You tried to keep it on track!

I'd hate to think that level-headed people who have argued this thread with logic and eloquence would be bullied into silence by the rudeness of one person who meted out a lot of judgment (while criticizing others for judging).

I think that most who contributed to this thread were careful to say that they were not certain that Bethany (in particular) was "guilty" of fake service dog fraud. Many of us, however, feel that her behavior/statements made us question her bona fides, but in reading over the previous posts, no one "convicted" her — everyone merely speculated.

But honestly, Bethany and her dog were not really the subject; rather they were the "occasion" for a broader discussion of: individual rights vs. collective rights; cheating the system and why that is ultimately a bad thing for society; the rise in egocentrism and entitlement in daily life; and whether following rules is important.

This is NOT about dogs on the trail. Really. And thanks for making the allegation that those of us who disagree with you are pet owners who resent Bethany because we want to take our dogs on the trail (which, in my case, is factually untrue, because I do not have a pet). Hiding behind a nickname on a website such as this one should not be perceived as giving you "license" to be rude to others. If you disagree, why not argue your points politely and logically?

I think the most disappointing part of this discussion is how a (small) minority of the people seem to feel it's "normal" (and therefore acceptable) for a certain percentage of people to scam the system. I guess it was ok in Nazi Germany when they were only rounding up a few Jews/Gays/Gypsies/Communists/Dissidents/Political Rivals, etc… right? It was only a few! When we begin to think that rules do not apply to us, we get a system without rules, morality, and humanity.

I'm sorry if this is all a bit too philosophical, but these subjects need to be discussed in America in our times.

For what its worth I have not had a dog for a long time – decades. On the other hand I still have the picture of my first dog, Snowball, a Spitz, on my mantelpiece (as well as my cat from 25 years ago, aka the smartest cat ever). The earliest memory I can dredge up was when my parents took me to pick out that dog when I was about 3.

So I DO like dogs a lot, and get lots of vicarious pleasure from my neighbors numerous dogs – I assume it would be a blast to take one backpacking especially if the dog was into it. One of them, a German Shepard that I have known for years and have gone along on with many long hikes – where she pretty much did about 2-3 times the length we did with all her running back and forth in excitement.

She is pretty much fading away now, and is in constant pain in its joints and can barely stand, so when someone mentioned the hip issues later in life (think it was Ian) it also struck a cord. However, different issue.

So I'm neither in the dog hating camp (I don't think there IS such a camp here) or whatever the other camp is supposed to be – something about being resentful of people who get to take their dog on the trial, or something. Not sure.

Even if all the supposed personal motivations and failings were TRUE of the people arguing from one side, which I doubt are true of anyone, it still wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the issue we were discussing. They are definitely difficult issues, involving compromises and balances, both to the preservation side (preservation vs. access), and the handicap side (access vs what is reasonable accommodation on the part of the NPS).

FWIW, I don't think he had an agenda, I just think he had an emotional reaction and couldn't get past the feeling we were attacking her. No biggie. The worst thing you can do, especially on line, it to be ad hominem back to someone you think is being that way towards you. I've been drawn into that sort of thing but trying not to. Passion isn't always good.

I agree that the person herself is not an issue, it was just her post/press coverage on the Ruffwear site that got us discussing the question "Is it OK to bring a dog you do not specifically need for medical support on trails in NPs?" and also "Does posting this story a social site full of people focused on dogs and backpacking, without further clarification, magnify the issue", especially if it appears to imply a successful method to game the system.

Why is it that every single thread about hiking dogs (regardless of original topic) veers into areas of accusation and name calling??

Oh wait!! That's EVERY thread on BPL!!!!

First of all, my post before about arguing about dogs on trails was supposed to be a joke…so sorry if it wasn't taken that way.
As for poop on trails in NP?? Oh yeah…we walked through literally mounds of it on the JMT.

My main complaint about this is that I see sooo much accusatory language aimed at Bethany (yes, we may be using this situation to discuss a broader concept, but still, the accusations are flying). I guess I don't understand why no one is giving her the benefit of the doubt? Uncontrolled epilepsy would be a HORRIBLE affliction to have on a trail of any length…could you imagine how awful it would be to have no warning you were about to have a grand mal seizure on a narrow trail with a nice drop off??

Just because she has a blog and brags about completing a thru hike with her dog doesn't mean she has to discuss any of her personal life with anyone. We aren't clamoring to hear about her sex life, or her college transcripts…she honestly doesn't have to tell us anything about that. It doesn't mean she's lying, or gaming the system. This may be a part of her life she doesn't want to share…she said she needed an alert dog. End of story.

My issues are

1) Dogs where they shouldn't be – Backcountry in National Parks
2) Using a "service dog" label for illegitimate access anywhere

Bethany chose to post her accomplishments on a nationally known dog gear site, which actively promotes dogs in all activities, without disclosing that it was Grizby's "service dog" label that provided them access into Glacier National Park. Then, only after a lot of prompting, did she offered a minimal statement.

Bethany works as a "dog trainer", yet her resumé includes nothing about service dogs. None of her 24 YouTube videos of training sessions show Grizby being trained as a service dog. There are no photos of Gizby on her Facebook account prior to her CDT hike, and although there are many links to various dog groups, trainers, and organizations, there are no obvious links relating to service dogs.

Reading her blog it is clear that she had a hiking partner from Day 1, from Canada to Mexico, who coincidentally, also had a "service dog" (also from LA). It is worth noting that the second dog came into heat and was kenneled for about the last 415 miles of their hike. This prompts the question of the necessity of the "service dogs".

I have no problem with service dogs in any setting, but I see nothing that would support her claim for Grizby.

And I'd rather not see a bunch of "internet service dogs" traversing national parks.

"..she said she needed an alert dog. End of story."

Jennifer, I agree whole-heatedly with almost every thing you said. But you are incorrect that she said she *needed* an alert dog, and this is more or less the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, her statement was more like the beginning of the story here.

The discussion here is NOT about whether she is LYING about anything. I feel it is important to get this straight as I think confusing THAT may be one of the reasons some people have reacted so emotionally.

I believe you can still review the posts on the Ruffwear site, though it seems they may have turned off new posts. What she said (only when challenged) was "it was a alert dog", and later when further challenged said the skill it was being trained for was "medical alert". I have no way of knowing if this is true, but I assume it is. As it turns out this is a fairly low bar to jump (or loophole to thread).

But she never made an effort when she had the chance to say exactly what most of us would probably say if they weren't using a loophole – that she *personally* needed the dog for a medical condition. If she HAD said that then it would probably have been the end of the story.

The issues would still be important, but most times is hard to have a discussion about such things in the abstract without specific cases to ground them, but lets set that aside for the moment.

It is a natural conclusion, then, to assume she omitted these details, while subsequently going on at some length on the legalese, because *in all likelihood* a more explicit answer would show she was gaming the system. By that I mean that she IS following the technical letter of the law, but is using a loophole *contrary* to the spirit of the law.

If she was gaming the system, as seem now very likely, then it is a legitimate issue to discuss whether gaming the system in this way does harm. It is also a legitimate issue to discuss whether what she subsequently did on her blog and at Ruffwear could be construed as flaunting this loophole, could do possibly harm by encouraging many other to do likewise in much greater numbers. Both of these issue can easily be discussed (and mostly have been here) without a personal attack on her.

Since she is a dog trainer – another question we never discussed was should people be allowed to train dogs in NPs (I would say they shouldn't), and how would that work without a person with a medically relevant issue even present.

I have read the statements on the RuffWear site… But honestly I still don't see why people think she is gaming the system.

Alert dogs are actually much harder to train than assistance dogs, and after skimming through her blog I never saw any implication that she is trying to cheat anyone. Just because she is a dog trainer also doesn't mean she is a medical alert trainer…she may just be aware that dog training like this exists.

I am just a bit sad that so many people are jumping on the she-is-gaming-the-system bandwagon when really there isn't any evidence that she did. You are all just acting on your suspicions and have very little facts…on ether side.

I can't see any situation where someone capable of hiking in the backcountry would need a service dog.
That being said, I agree with Valerie that dogs should be allowed anywhere that stock animals are.
And that being said, if your dog is off leash and acts aggressive towards me, don't get upset when I shoot pepper spray into it's eyes.