Just saw this on FB...

https://www.facebook.com/FindOhly

Regard should be had to the following:
http://www.northshorerescue.com/2012...cue-suspended/


-Ryan

Put your dogs on a LEASH..Fairly simple. SAR should not be risking their lives for a dog especially when the owner is too stupid to leash the dog and have it under control at all times.

Hilarious. The doggie didn't know this rule and he's a sentient being too. If SAR wants to be involved in dog rescue, no problem. It was their choice, they went, they suspended the search.

Throwing bacon around to attract the hound must be a new chapter in the SAR manual.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/r...101/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ve-search.html

"This is an issue of public safety," said Jones. "If the dog was lost in a lower trail we wouldn't go and search. But where this dog went — this area is avalanche-prone and in steep terrain and people are responding and we're concerned."

Good for you SAR. You're a great team!

Dogs are already being taught to drive in New Zealand so it's only a matter of time before they're taught to understand simple symbols on signage. Until then, it's the responsibility of dog owners. From the Mount Seymour page of BC Parks (generic for all their sites I guess):

"Pets on Leash
Pets/domestic animals must be on a leash at all times and are not allowed in beach areas or park buildings. Signs are posted and fines are issued for pets off their leash. You are responsible for their behaviour and must dispose of their excrement.
Backcountry areas are not suitable for dogs or other pets due to wildlife issues and the potential for problems with bears."

Hopefully he's found, and without injury to any of the volunteers who are looking for him. Hopefully, the owner will make a little donation to SAR to top up their sled fuel fund, etc.

I think they found him but due to the dogs free wheeling lifestyle and temperment it's gone again. I'd trade him in when they finally catch him because you can bet it's going to do that again and again.

Or keep it on a leash.

What a silly emotional response and waste of resources. Or did we solve homelessness, hunger, underfunded hospitals, and inadequate mental health care when I wasn't watching?

There are plenty of great volunteer opportunities that help people in dire need that I would think come before helping some lame dog with irresponsible owners. But that's only the opinion of one I guess.

I think KC has highlighted the most important issue of this rescue; the imperative to criticize how other people donate their volunteer time.

This comment is also a silly emotional response.

Are you criticizing how I criticize what other people do with their volunteer time?

Anyways, I did qualify it as just my opinion, but truth be told, there are government resources at play, so I think it's fair game to ask the questions. When on a SAR task, the members are covered by WCB. Should ratepayers be exposed to that liability over a lost dog?

If SAR can present a reasonable argument the issue is public safety (intervening to prevent people from entering hazardous territory) rather than simply "looking for a missing dog", then yes the ratepayers need to assume that liability in the event that someone injures themselves on the job.

So my next question would be, if I lose my favourite ski's up there, and a dozen of my friends decide they want to go help me look, is it reasonable to have SAR step in and oversee the search in the interest of mitigating risk to those who would volunteer the search?