[Buzz123]

I think the point is that dogs can't be running around loose with no supervision. But I think in town it is not safe for the dog to be off leash where cars are zooming by, and it is at minimum a pain in the butt for me when my dogs are on a leash and someone comes by with a loose dog, especially if it is big enough to do damage to one of mine. When dogs approach each other not on a leash they just do the dog greeting thing and start deciding on the pecking order. If they are on a leash they are OK unless the leashes get tangled. That's when they fight. So I try to keep my dogs at bay when another one approaches. But I've been out jogging and had loose dogs attack mine because we were running. I've had to put my boot in the ribs of a few otherwise good dogs more than once.

In Nat'l Parks dogs aren't allowed on the trails at all so I don't actually know about Red Rock. I think it's OK out there even though it is a Nat'l Park now; but I think they are required to be on a leash. It's just that it's very hard on both dog and owner to maneuver those rocky trails with a dog on a leash. I don't actually think that it is legal to have dogs on the trails of Mt. Charleston unless they are on a leash either. I always left my trail dog's leash on him so I could grab it when other hikers approached.

BTW: We locals don't actually refer to Mount Charleston as Mt. Chuck. A very few old timers will sometimes refer to it as Charlie.

[guinnessjim]

i agree...dogs should be supervised, regardless of leashed on not. in my experience, a dog on leash can often be more aggressive if they feel threatened. this is a direct result of the leash...it acts as a restraint, that effectively takes away their option to put distance between themselves and something they don't like. of course, that is definitely not always the case, just as it is not always the case that an off leash dog will be a problem.

but we are basically saying the same thing and the point is that dogs must be under control (the ones you had to 'boot' clearly were not, and i too would strike out if another dog attacked mine).

and i don't think that red rock is a national park...i think it is a national conservation area or national forest. the rules applying to dogs are different depending on the designation (always leashed in a NP...i've worked in them and this is a strict rule). NF's and NCA's tend to have more relaxed policies, usually directly related to the relative amount of visitors expected in a specific area...i.e., very popular trails will almost always require leashes where as seldom visited or more technical trails/areas will require control.

**and i never referred to Charleston as Chuck until i was hiking up there with locals who referred to it as such...the name doesn't really matter to me; i'm just glad it (and the spring mts in general) are there...thanks for the tip, tho

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by guinnessjim

i agree...dogs should be supervised, regardless of leashed on not. in my experience, a dog on leash can often be more aggressive if they feel threatened. this is a direct result of the leash...it acts as a restraint, that effectively takes away their option to put distance between themselves and something they don't like. of course, that is definitely not always the case, just as it is not always the case that an off leash dog will be a problem.

but we are basically saying the same thing and the point is that dogs must be under control (the ones you had to 'boot' clearly were not, and i too would strike out if another dog attacked mine).

and i don't think that red rock is a national park...i think it is a national conservation area or national forest. the rules applying to dogs are different depending on the designation (always leashed in a NP...i've worked in them and this is a strict rule). NF's and NCA's tend to have more relaxed policies, usually directly related to the relative amount of visitors expected in a specific area...i.e., very popular trails will almost always require leashes where as seldom visited or more technical trails/areas will require control.

**and i never referred to Charleston as Chuck until i was hiking up there with locals who referred to it as such...the name doesn't really matter to me; i'm just glad it (and the spring mts in general) are there...thanks for the tip, tho

You know, I live here and I can't figure out what Red Rock is now. I knew it was finally designated a Nat'l Conservation Area, but then I thought they had made it a Nat'l Park when they added a bunch more land to it on the other side of the highway. I guess it is a conservation area though because Nevada only has one Nat'l Park, Great Basin. I just show my pass and drive through the gate and don't care. But you're right about dogs out there being OK on the trails. Dogs aren't allowed on trails in Nat'l Parks at all, leash or no leash; only in the public areas and camp grounds on a leash. I don't think that's fair either. We went on a dog hike with the Sierra (Sahara ) Club at Valley of Fire one time. I think they do that often.

[gulfer]

LOL to angry troll. I won't comment and get a flame session going, but thanks for all the information as I will be bringing a dog with me as well.

[RedWingsFan]

Originally Posted by guinnessjim

wait....what? RWF...u don't even live in LV? yet you cruise the LV forum and make comments as though you still do? hahaha...oh, well, i guess all forums need an angry troll.

No, I moved last year. But my living there 10 years gives me the right to share my opinions, what I know, answer questions, etc. You don't live there either and you're posting in the Vegas section. MANY people posting in areas on these boards don't actually live in that area. But that doesn't mean they don't know what you are asking. I provided you with several links of information. Other people gave you guestimated answers. I don't know many "trolls" that post sites for you to confirm the rules.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by RedWingsFan

No, I moved last year. But my living there 10 years gives me the right to share my opinions, what I know, answer questions, etc. You don't live there either and you're posting in the Vegas section. MANY people posting in areas on these boards don't actually live in that area. But that doesn't mean they don't know what you are asking. I provided you with several links of information. Other people gave you guestimated answers. I don't know many "trolls" that post sites for you to confirm the rules.

Actually the troll part is that you are in fact wrong...but secure in your belief anyway.

[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by RedWingsFan

No, I moved last year. But my living there 10 years gives me the right to share my opinions, what I know, answer questions, etc. You don't live there either and you're posting in the Vegas section. MANY people posting in areas on these boards don't actually live in that area. But that doesn't mean they don't know what you are asking. I provided you with several links of information. Other people gave you guestimated answers. I don't know many "trolls" that post sites for you to confirm the rules.

really RWF...you don't see the difference between the other postings and yours?

ok...here it is:

I am moving TO las veags, therefore my posts in the las vegas forum regarding dog ownership and dog walking in las vegas are consistent.

you don't have a dog, don't seem to like dogs, and no longer actually live in vegas. therefore your ability to answer dog related questions is remarkably biased by your low opinions of K9s. i appreciate the fact that you lived in vegas, but you don't really know anything about 'dog-life' in LV (aside from info that you found online and misinterpreted). the questimated answers i received were what i was looking for..namely, are there areas i can walk my dog w/o a leash and not worry about specific rules/laws. you can claim that laws are there for a reason, but i am pretty certain you don't follow the rules 100% either (unless you can honestly say that you never go 5mph over a speed limit, etc.)

so yes, you have the right to share your opinion (even if it is slightly off topic...the theme of the thread was not opinions on whether all dogs should be leashed, but rather a request for information regarding living with and walking dogs in LV). however, you also stated info that wasn't accurate while attacking other posters info (which ironically was correct).

oh yeah...the troll comment absolutely applies as you clearly 'troll' the forum of a city you no longer live in. the fact that you commented, researched and added links, and are involved in a thread involving issues you aren't completely familiar with qualifies the troll status (perhaps even bumps it from angry troll to uber troll)

**not saying there is anything wrong w/ being a troll...some of my best buds are evil trollers themselves

[RedWingsFan]

You may not like my response to your orignal question. But the fact remains that with the links I provided I gave you far more information than anyone else did. You just didn't like my information (even though it's backed up by all the links I provided to city sites). But it is accurate information. Just click on the links and you can read it on the city sites yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.

[guinnessjim]

sorry RWF but you are missing the point. i had already done a web search and knew the regulations (e.g., i had already seen the links prior to you sending them...your efforts to post them we're appreciated none the less). but rules are not always enforced to the letter and that was the info i was after - hence my question was directed at dog owners and dog walkers who have actual experiences that can help me/others moving to LV with their dogs.

to reuse my speed limit example, the posted signs are rarely the generally accepted upper limit. there are definitely areas where speed limits are enforced to the letter, but as a general rule, +/- 5 mph is acceptable. the same can be said for "leash laws". often the law is in place, but established verbal control is acceptable. in many cases, the law simply states that dogs 'at large' are prohibited (as discussed previously).

sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but really, i think it is safe to let it go...

[jfkIII]

wow...this thread has really become dog-eat-dog!