Dogs on Quandary?

[Timothy]

Overheard lately in the high country:

Hiker 1: Hi there, great day for a hike!
Hiker 2: Well, yes, it is, except, you see this dog here keeps biting me. Is it your dog?
H1: Oh, no. He lives in my house, and I buy his food and pay all his doctor bills. But he doesn’t belong to me, that would be species-ist.
H2: I see. Say, do you think you could persuade him to stop biting me?
H1: Of course not! He is just acting in accordance with his nature. And besides, it's your fault that he is biting you.
H2: Ummm, my fault? (Ow! Ouch!) May I trouble you to tell me why?
H1: Well, it's quite simple. This dog is very friendly toward everyone, except people wearing green socks. You really should have known that green socks would upset him.
H2: Oh, I think I understand. So then, are you saying it is immoral for me to wear green socks around your dog?
H1: I told you he is not my dog, and yes, you are an evil person for wearing green socks around him. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. Enjoy the rest of your hike!
H2: Thanks, I'd love to, but I can't walk with this dog attached to my ankle. (Ow!) I don’t suppose you could help me remove it, could you?
H1: Oh, no, I couldn’t do that. He is a free person, and besides, I like him better than you.
H2: Thanks anyway. His jaws are bound to get tired eventually. Have a great day! (Ouch!)

[Somewhat of a Prick]

So did we ever answer the question in the OP?

[kbmiller]

Colorado Law: § 35-43-126. Dog worrying stock
Any dog found running, worrying, or injuring sheep, cattle, or other livestock may be killed, and the owner or harborer of such dog shall be liable for all damages done by it.

Colorado Law: § 33-6-1286: Wildlife
(2) Unless otherwise allowed by commission rule or regulation, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly or negligently allow or direct a dog which he owns or which is under his control to harass wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is actually injured by such dog.  Any person who violates this subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars.

(3) A Colorado wildlife officer or other peace officer may capture or kill any dog he or she determines to be harassing wildlife.  The provisions of this subsection (3) shall not apply to dogs that are under the direct personal control of a person

[Mitsugi]

Colorado Law: § 35-43-126. Dog worrying stock
Any dog found running, worrying, or injuring sheep, cattle, or other livestock may be killed, and the owner or harborer of such dog shall be liable for all damages done by it.

Colorado Law: § 33-6-1286: Wildlife
(2) Unless otherwise allowed by commission rule or regulation, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly or negligently allow or direct a dog which he owns or which is under his control to harass wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is actually injured by such dog.  Any person who violates this subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars.

(3) A Colorado wildlife officer or other peace officer may capture or kill any dog he or she determines to be harassing wildlife.  The provisions of this subsection (3) shall not apply to dogs that are under the direct personal control of a person

These laws are never adequately written.
RE the first one, I really doubt there is livestock on Quandry. Livestock would imply ownership by a person and I doubt a mountain goat could ever be considered livestock. So that one is out.

RE the second and third ones. They don't define "harass". What one person thinks is harassment might not be harassment to another person. Also, a $200 fine is pretty much a non factor I'd say and well, I really can't see a wildlife officer walking out on Quandry and shooting somebody's dog or something to that effect. In reality, I'd be willing to bet that people probably bring dogs, not on a leash, up and down Quandry on the reg.

I think I saw no less than a half dozen dogs on Bierstadt and at least as many on Democrat/Bross loop this last summer. The overwhelming majority of people are plenty pleased to see a happy pup.

The bottom line is just bring a leash in your bag. If something happens or somebody complains, leash the dog. If you see a goat, leash the dog. *shrug*

[climbingcue]

Shooting dogs in Colorado by ranchers can be done without anything happening to the rancher. Here is a story, ranchers kid just wanted to kill something. A 4 month old puppy is not going to cause harm to a cow.

https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/kre ... ith-ar-15/

[LURE]

These laws are never adequately written.
RE the first one, I really doubt there is livestock on Quandry. Livestock would imply ownership by a person and I doubt a mountain goat could ever be considered livestock. So that one is out.

RE the second and third ones. They don't define "harass". What one person thinks is harassment might not be harassment to another person. Also, a $200 fine is pretty much a non factor I'd say and well, I really can't see a wildlife officer walking out on Quandry and shooting somebody's dog or something to that effect. In reality, I'd be willing to bet that people probably bring dogs, not on a leash, up and down Quandry on the reg.

I think I saw no less than a half dozen dogs on Bierstadt and at least as many on Democrat/Bross loop this last summer. The overwhelming majority of people are plenty pleased to see a happy pup.

The bottom line is just bring a leash in your bag. If something happens or somebody complains, leash the dog. If you see a goat, leash the dog. *shrug*

well that's really an opinion

a goat may not be considered livestock but it is wildlife - as far as the law is written it's the same thing as far as harassment goes, harassing wildlife or livestock

there are plenty of other places where there are domestic sheep that graze above timberline on public land. in those cases though the sheep dogs will make quick work of your little domestic pup; in that case it'd honestly probably be less traumatic to just watch someone shoot your dog. and don't forget public land cattle grazing

i think the real bottom line is just be prepared to deal with the consequences if you wish to keep your dog off leash, notwithstanding the fact it's illegal in many places. always waiting to leash the dog until you see the wildlife often means it's too late to prevent it

harassment of wildlife - by people or domestic pets - can be a very big deal, especially during the wintering and calving seasons, which is why these laws are written

edit: fyi harass is defined in statutes (33-1-102) and it's intentionally broad "(24) "Harass"means to unlawfully endanger, worry, impede, annoy, pursue, disturb, molest,
rally, concentrate, harry, chase, drive, herd, or torment wildlife."

[SchralpTheGnar]

So did we ever answer the question in the OP?

The first reply answered the question.

[Ptglhs]

Could we all just agree that digging up a post from two and a half years ago and saying incendiary things about a touchy subject is pretty good evidence that mitsugi is very intentionally trolling?

[LURE]

i totally took the bait

i didn’t realize it had been dug up, but was also having deja vu when I saw the thread title show up in the recent posts

[JChitwood]

Shooting dogs in Colorado by ranchers can be done without anything happening to the rancher. Here is a story, ranchers kid just wanted to kill something. A 4 month old puppy is not going to cause harm to a cow.

https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/kre ... ith-ar-15/

Ranchers are despicable. It’s almost as if they write all the laws for their benefit and everybody goes along with them. I do eat the occasional cheeseburger but I’d be fine if beef consumption continues to decline precipitously and they all lose. But since they somehow own every politician they would just have a law passed that says we have to pay them for nothing. Wait that already happened with welfare grazing on public lands. Shooting a puppy with an assault rifle then tossing the carcass in a field? And I was pissed when they shot M56.

[greenonion]

What’s going on with a couple of resurrected old posts? Are we trying to fill the crazy void that just ended VERY RECENTLY??

[GregMiller]

If I had to guess, they’re spam accounts building up innocuous posts