Hikers can no longer bring dogs to Paria Canyon wilderness
permit areas
New policy could open the door to more dog bans
 By
Dan Sands
".prohibited...", ".not allowed.", ".forbidden.", ".access is denied...',
".no longer allowed."
Effective on January 1, 2003, the US Bureau of Land Management closed portions
of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area in Arizona and Utah to
dogs. No longer can day-hikers and backpackers enjoy the companionship of their
dogs in the permit areas of the Paria Canyon, including Buckskin Gulch, Wire
Pass and the Coyote Buttes.
The BLM reports on its Internet web site that:
".impacts from dogs, such as harassment of other visitors and wildlife, noise,
and waste have been increasing to the point that dogs will no longer be allowed
after 31 December 2002."
Because BLM controls more public land than any other single federal agency,1
it has a huge impact on people with diverse animal interests if it adopts unreasonable
animal-access or animal-use policies. Furthermore, the agency could be encouraged
to take similar actions in other resource areas under its control if these restrictions
go substantially unchallenged.
A bit of background
BLM has provided a wonderful description of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs
Wilderness on its web site:
"The 112,500-acre Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness lies approximately
10 miles west of Page, Arizona, in Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County,
Utah. Nationally known for its beauty, the Paria Canyon has towering walls streaked
with desert varnish, huge red rock amphitheaters, sandstone arches, wooded terraces,
and hanging gardens. The 3000-foot escarpment known as the Vermilion Cliffs
dominates the remainder of the wilderness with its thick Navajo sandstone face,
steep, boulder-strewn slopes, rugged arroyos and stark overall appearance. Some
of the best slot canyon hiking opportunities on the Colorado Plateau are found
here. Deer and desert bighorn sheep inhabit the area. The wilderness also provides
opportunities for backpacking, photography, and solitude. In the northwest portion
of the wilderness lies Coyote Buttes, an area of spectacular scenery displaying
domes, aprons, fins, corridors, and a variety of small fragile rock sculptures
carved in colorful swirling cross- bedded sandstone. The variety of colors and
textures in the rock formations within the wilderness constantly change with
variations in light and weather. This colorful sandstone area creates a feeling
of wonder and amazement."2
Prior to the mid-1980s this BLM land area was quietly secluded and little used
by the public. Livestock grazing occurred within the lower one-quarter of the
canyon. In 1984, the Arizona Wilderness Act brought this area under the protection
of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the die was cast. The prophecy is self-fulfilling.
"If you build it, they will come." Over the years, this area has seen a large
increase in resource use.
The issue
Until recently, BLM has been an animal-friendly organization. Unlike the National
Park Service, BLM has never promulgated resource management policies that precluded
people from enjoying the companionship of pets (especially dogs and horses)
during visits to BLM land. Dogs and horses have always been welcome in the Paria
Canyon.
Over the years, this area has become so popular that BLM has decided, in the
interest of resource protection, to limit the number of overnight users to 20
per day. When Congress granted permission to charge for permits, BLM decided
that dogs, like people, would have to pay for the privilege of visiting the
wilderness. So, dogs were assessed the same rate as humans: $5 per day. The
issue here, however, is not the permit system or the fees involved, but the
tortured logic applied to the resource management policy concerning the presence
of dogs.
In the summer of 1998, I contacted BLM to express my personal views on a number
of aspects of management of the resource. Concerning dogs, I wrote:
"We would like to comment about dogs. We have not experienced any trouble with
dogs in the Paria Canyon. Every dog we have encountered has been well mannered.
We own a dog. Although we have never taken her on a backpacking trip, we would
not want to be denied the opportunity and pleasure of hiking with one of our
family members. This issue is a matter of proactive enforcement by the BLM.
Sanction troublemakers and allow compliant users to freely enjoy the land and
wilderness experience."3
On July 10, 1998, I received a long letter from Harry Barber, the BLM Resource
Manager in Kanab. Concerning my comments on dogs, he wrote:
"The presence of dogs in the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is of
special concern to a large segment of our visitors. According to a visitor survey
conducted by NAU (Northern Arizona University-ed. note), when asked what they
disliked about their canyon experience, the fourth leading complaint was the
presence of other people's dogs. On the other hand, when asked what they like
best about their canyon experience, the fourth leading response was that visitors
could hike with their dogs. In order to try to respond to each side equitably,
we decided to try something different instead of banning dogs altogether. We
reasoned that dogs should be subject to the same standards as an adult person,
with the exception that a dog would not be required to get a backcountry permit.
In effect, dogs (or their owners) pay for the same privileges as any other user.
This policy seems to have satisfactorily resolved the issue for most people."4
In July 1998 the BLM resource managers seemed satisfied that they had reached
a reasonable accommodation to conflicting views on the presence of dogs within
the resource area. The BLM Resource Manager himself made no reference to evidence,
studies or objective observations concerning any adverse impact created on the
resource by the presence of dogs. Instead, BLM concern was for the opinion of
its customers, the resource users.
Horses
The BLM does not want you to hike with your dog because ".impacts from dogs,
such as harassment of other visitors and wildlife, noise, and waste have been
increasing to the point that dogs will no longer be allowed after 31 December
2002." But the BLM remains committed to allowing at least some access for equestrians.
Horses will continue to be permitted in some areas that will be off-limits to
dogs. Although hoofed stock are banned in the Coyote Buttes Special Management
Area, recreational use of horses and packstock is still allowed in Paria Canyon
according to the fact sheet on the BLM website:
Can I use a horse or other packstock for my private (non-commercial) trip?
Yes, however it is not recommended. Portions of Paria Canyon are very rugged
or contain quicksand. If you use horses or other packstock5, you
must keep them in the shoreline terrace areas and not on the camping terraces.
No horses or pack stock are allowed for commercial, guided trips.6
Having read that, I took pains on October 14, 2002, (my last Paria Canyon hike)
to document horse manure deposits within 10 feet of a stream and in other areas
as one indication that horses have a far greater impact on the land. Horses
are noisier than dogs and eat canyon vegetation; their manure dumps are far
larger than dog piles and attract flies and pollute at least as much as dog
or human feces.
Harassment of wildlife
When you think about what one or two dogs could possibly do to harass wildlife,
several things come to mind. The dog might bark or the dog might give chase.
Chase scenarios are pretty limited though, because most dogs I have seen in
the Paria Canyon were wearing pannier-type packs that would greatly limit any
enthusiasm or agility for a chase. The dogs I have encountered in the Paria
Canyon also have given the appearance and demeanor of being experienced hikers,
just like their owners. There are exceptions to everything and no absolutes,
but I have a difficult time imagining that backpacking dogs, trained to the
discipline of the pack and trail, are running rogue in the Paria Canyon causing
so much havoc among the users and wildlife as to warrant a total ban by the
BLM.
The two prominent ungulates that reside in the Paria Canyon are deer and bighorn
sheep. There are also antelope in this area, but they are more likely to be
found outside the canyon. Within the lower Paria, the ungulate population seems
to range in the lower one third of the canyon. They seldom roam in the narrows
area for any length of time because there is no forage and the confining walls
of the canyon are likely to make them feel threatened. There is ample evidence
that the deer frequent the stream area, and it is possible to occasionally observe
bighorn sheep tracks along the stream. The bighorn sheep population in the area
of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area is the species of most
concern to the BLM; its habitat is up and out of the stream area and high along
the walls of the lower one-third of the canyon.
Peak times for hiking in the canyon are April-May and September-October. Peak
breeding time for bighorn sheep is August; most lambs are born in January or
February when the area is virtually devoid of visitors. The common sense conclusion
from this information is that the bighorn population in the Paria Canyon is
under the least influence and stress from humans (and their dog companions)
when the rut is at its peak and when lambs are born.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department apparently sees nothing wrong with the
health and status of the bighorn sheep population in and near the Paria Canyon-Vermilion
Cliffs Wilderness Area. The bighorns are currently being harvested by hunters
in properly controlled numbers. Predators implicated in sheep deaths are mountain
lions, golden eagles, bobcats, and coyotes7. I cannot find any comments,
warnings, concerns or studies from the Arizona Game and Fish Department that
indicate that domestic dogs accompanying hikers through the Paria Canyon are
harming or diminishing the bighorn population. 8
There is research that concludes that bighorn sheep have evolved in the presence
of canine predators and react strongly to the presence of dogs by increased
heart rate and flight. Bighorn sheep run when they see a dog. The studies also
indicate that bighorn sheep have an equally strong heart rate increase and flight
response when they see humans, land-based vehicles, helicopters, and even when
they hear noise where there is no physical manifestation.
These studies were conducted on the bighorn sheep populations of specific areas
in Southern California and Southern Arizona near Tucson and are considered applicable
only to the sheep in those areas. None of them were conducted with the bighorn
population in the Paria Canyon. Therefore, if our BLM Paria Canyon policy makers
are relying on these studies, they are practicing questionable science.
In the worst case, "harassment of other visitors" might include an incident
of a dog biting someone. If this has occurred it would be truly unfortunate
and regrettable, especially if unprovoked; however, the person responsible for
controlling the offending dog must be held accountable. An incident (or even
several incidents) of dog bite would not be sufficient reason to extinguish
the privileges of the many hundreds of responsible dog owners who enjoy the
use of this resource. There have been much more serious injuries in the Paria
Canyon that have been inflicted by the foolish actions of resource users or
by the stealth of nature.
I am in the process of collecting information about the nature of "harassment
of other visitors" from BLM; even though it is public information, the BLM wants
to be paid to produce it and I am deciding what to ask for first.
Noise
Obviously, the reference to "noise" is barking.
How much barking from dogs in a 37-mile long canyon would have to occur before
you can reach a conclusion that a dog's bark constitutes a sufficiently egregious
act to warrant a ban on dogs and the subsequent punishment of all who would
hike through this area in the company of a dog?
I have traversed this canyon eight times. I've seen and met many dogs during
these hikes. I have yet to hear a dog bark in the canyon. Does that mean dogs
have not barked in the Paria Canyon? No, I am sure dogs have barked here. The
very act of hiking places the components of space and time between hikers.
Is it likely that the random bark of a dog, occurring infrequently, would be
sufficient to upset reasonable people to a point where they would support a
call for a ban on hiking dogs? I think it more likely that some people who have
an inherent dislike of dogs have complained to the BLM that they heard a dog
bark in the Paria Canyon and this somehow been magnified or distorted. Some
of this issue can be laid squarely on the shoulders of those who hike with dogs
as a matter of responsible dog control. But do the actions of an irresponsible
few justify the denial of the responsible majority?
Waste
This is an obvious reference to naked, lying-in-the-open dog turds. BLM rules
require that dog waste be disposed in the same manner as human waste. On my
last traverse of this canyon in October, I saw the tracks of at least two other
dogs that had recently gone before me. I was looking for dog waste lying on
the ground but I found none. Again, the question is: Do the actions of an irresponsible
very few justify denial of the responsible majority?
There is, however, a larger issue that underlies this question. Human waste
is a much larger problem to BLM than a few piles of dog feces left open and
exposed in a 37-mile long canyon. BLM has specific rules for the disposal of
waste: bury it six to eight inches deep at least 200 feet away from a spring
and as far away from water (meaning the stream) as possible and carry out your
toilet paper. Recently, BLM has been offering "poop bags" as a sanitary means
to contain and pack out human and dog feces. (They don't care about horse dung,
though. No poop bags for horses.)
Of course, it is possible to find evidence of the poor toilet manners of many
people who pass through this canyon. Naked turds with toilet paper flags are
not memorials left by dogs.
Currently, the BLM allows 20 overnight backpackers and an unlimited number
of day hikers into the canyons. I would estimate that nearly all of those people
- including those who hike with dogs - will do the right thing in the disposal
of their fecal waste. But the non-compliant few create a problem for all. Will
the BLM ban people from this canyon as a response to the actions of a few?
Even while the BLM claims there is a problem with human waste, they have no
concrete research available to them to support their resource management decisions.
The BLM Colorado Plateau Managers' Coalition web site notes that human fecal
waste in the Paria Canyon is increasing and could be contributing to an escalation
in coliform bacteria and parasitic organisms in the stream, yet no "comprehensive
region- wide research has been done, and no viable solution identified."
1
Dogs are not mentioned. Humans are perceived as the biggest fecal waste problem
and yet no one has a clue as to the actual nature or extent of the problem (if
there is in fact a problem), and most importantly, there has been no "comprehensive"
research.
An interesting contortion of reasoning is contained in the statement: "Water
quality is an issue that every American is concerned about. Many of these wilderness
areas are watersheds for public water systems. Water contamination due to humans
is far more deadly than contaminants from livestock."
However, unlike some other wilderness watersheds, the Paria River stream flow
is not a drinking water supply source for any human community. Even backpackers
do not use it for drinking water although my dog and countless others have used
it without any ill effects.
If the water in the Paria Canyon is a health hazard to the drinking water of
any human community, the health departments of Coconino County, Arizona, and
Kane County, Utah, would be involved in testing and planning.
The Environmental Protection Agency monitors water quality of the Paria River
and the resultant water quality test results are available on the EPA's Surf
Your Watershed Internet web site.9 The Paria Canyon's stream flow
is most importantly recognized for the silt (mud) load it dumps into the Colorado
River at the head of the Grand Canyon. If there is something wrong with the
water in the Paria River, someone is keeping it real quiet.
Conclusions
The decision to prohibit hiking dogs in the Paria Canyon is a purely political
decision by the BLM based only on the complaints of people who don't have much
tolerance for the diversity of interests in our society. Over the years, the
BLM has come under increasing pressure about the presence of dogs in the Paria
Canyon and has referred to complaints in literature supplied to hikers. Conversely,
it is likely that many people who hike with a dog have not written to express
satisfaction with the multiple use availability of the resource. As a result,
rather than do the right thing and manage the resource in a way that considers
the diverse experiences of the resource users, the BLM has chosen the easy and
decidedly misanthropic solution and that is to just say no.
The BLM's outright ban on domestic dogs also ignores a number of larger societal
interests. There is probably no stronger human-animal bond than that which exists
between people and horses, dogs and cats. The BLM has just trampled on one of
the strongest of those bonds, and that insensitivity will outrage many people
who pay taxes to support federal lands even though they may never set food in
the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area.
The answers to these problems lie in a combination of education, voluntary
compliance, enforcement when possible and where necessary, and stewardship of
the resource, but those kinds of solutions require an extra effort on behalf
of the BLM and there is inertia in bureaucracy. It is much easier to regulate
and forbid than to work with opposing interests to find common ground and compromise
- easier for and therefore more acceptable to them, maybe, but not to me. I
hope it is equally unacceptable to many other good and decent people out there
who enjoy the companionship of their canine family member in the outdoors.
Business interests are at stake as well; a number of companies that supply
equipment such as backpacks and booties for hiking dogs are affected by such
decisions. At a time when many Americans are turning to recreation sources within
our own boundaries for safety from international travel, this decision by the
BLM seems particularly onerous.
Notes
- 262 million acres which are almost entirely contained within the 12 western-most
states
- https://www.az.blm.gov/paria/index2regs.html
- personal correspondence, June 28, 1998
- personal correspondence, Harry Barber, July 10, 1998 (reference UT-046-1210)
- "other packstock" I would guess means burros, donkeys and llamas. If you
own one, bring it along. Just don't bring your dog.
- www.az.blm.gov/paria/pcfaq2.html#pcfaq24
- www.gf.state.az.us/frames/fishwild/html/flagstaff/hunt_unit_12b.html (No
longer online)
- www.gf.state.az.us/frames/fishwild/idx_game.htm (No longer online)
- http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=14070007
What you can do
Please remember that employees of the US BLM are people just like anyone else,
trying to do a job and make good decisions. It is fortunate that we live in
a country where wecan debate an issue and disagree with each other. Please
be thoughtful and civil in your correspondence. Write and complain loudly but
politely and reasonably to the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area
resource managers at these addresses:
Field Manager,
US BLM - Kanab,
318 North 100 East
Kanab, UT 84741
Field Manager,
US BLM - St. George,
345 East Riverside Drive,
St. George, UT 84790
The Field Resource Managers' boss is:
Sally Wisely,
State Director, US BLM Utah
PO Box 45155,
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155
At the top of the BLM organization is:
Kathleen Clarke,
Director, US BLM,
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
The following Utah and Arizona federal elected officials will be interested
to hear your opinions.
(A special note: if you believe these BLM restrictions are unwarranted,
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch would be a particularly good choice to receive your
correspondence. An aide to Senator Hatch has in the past specifically cautioned
BLM Resource Managers that the Senator would not look favorably on undue resource
restrictions.)
US House of Representatives
(Note: This list does not include newly elected representatives in Arizona.)
Jeff Flake (Arizona-1st, R), 1201 S. Alma School Road, Suite 2950, Mesa,
AZ 85210
Ed Pastor (Arizona-2nd, D), 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 150, Phoenix,
AZ 85004
John B. Shadegg (Arizona-4th, R), 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-178,
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Jim Kolbe (Arizona-5th, R), 1661 North Swan Road Suite 112, Tucson,
AZ 85712
J. D. Hayworth (Arizona-6th, R), 1017 S Gilbert Rd., Suite 203, Mesa,
AZ 85204
Jim Matheson (Utah-2nd, D), 125 State St., Rm.2311, Salt Lake City,
UT 84138
Chris Cannon (Utah-3rd, Republican), 51 S University Av Suite 319, Provo,
UT 84606
US Senate
John Kyl (Arizona), 2200 East Camelback Rd, Suite 120, Phoenix, AZ
85016-3455
John McCain (Arizona), 2400 East Arizona Biltmore Cir, Suite 1150, Phoenix,
AZ 85016
Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), 8402 Federal Building, 125 South State Street,
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Robert F. Bennett (Utah), 4225 Federal Building, 125 South State Street,
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Other contacts
I highly recommend writing to individual members who serve on the House Resources
Committee. There are 52 current members and you may find their names and addresses
at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/
E-mail works, but a thoughtful letter written on paper and delivered by the
US mail seems to carry greater weight.
You need not be a resident of Arizona or Utah to feel impacted by this decision.
This resource is federal land. It belongs to every citizen of the United States.
If you treasure any outdoor experience in the company of your canine family
member, this decision impacts you.
Overall, the BLM has a tough job. I am not interested in making it easier
or more comfortable for them, but I certainly have nothing but respect for the
overall mission and stewardship of the public lands that they make an effort,
although grossly misguided in this situation, to carry out. I do not condone,
agree with, approve of or endorse disobedience to a civil or criminal law as
manner of protest.
|
