A misbehaved mutt poses much less danger and is much less common than a misbehaved hiker. How about we close the trails all together until every hiker is a responsible hiker??

I don't even like seeing dogs in campgrounds, much less trails, because the barkers are never hushed by owners or anyone else. Campground volunteers ignore this, presumably because it seems like law enforcement duties. If dogs are not supervised responsibly in campgrounds, how much less likely is it that they will be on leash on trails, not accosting strangers and chasing wildlife?

Leave the dogs at home, or inside a big rig.

Tired of hearing about well behaved dogs. Many are not, and the owners do not seem to care, assuring you that their hound of the baskervilles is friendly, really, wouldn't hurt a fly.

Most dog owners are oblivious to the negative impacts their animals have on others. I currently do not have a dog, but have had several in the past. I also have many close friends who have dogs. I have no doubt it is difficult to come up with hard difinitive empirical science which would satisfy. There are probably few researchers looking into this sorta problem. Most try gathering "data" through surveys and such. Surveys are notoriously flawed and seldom difinitively demonstrate anything.

At my local NP, Olympic National Park, I have been surprised at the amount of wildlife I have viewed just at trailheads. I have no doubt I would see much less if dogs were permitted. I like I can walk down a trail and see grouse, squirels, etc. Having lived in a wilderness cabin and seen the effect of dogs on reducing the wildlife just around the cabin, I think a ban on dogs is appropriate for NP trails.

Of course the dog problem is a really people problem. The same goes for any bear problem, it is really a people problem. Again, the ONP has made several changes in food storage regulations, requiring bear canisters in more areas, simply because people fail to properly hang their food on the bear wires which are provided. In one area, people were simply leaving their food out during the day, prompting bear visits, which resulted in the NP threatening to close the area to camping if the people problem persisted. In NF areas where dogs are permitted, in my experience the overwhelming majority of the people with dogs do not obey the rules. Reading the comments here would lead some to think most people with dogs gladly comply with all the regulations, but a simple hike out into our NF areas tells a completely opposite story. I would hate to see that repeated in our NPs. Enforcement is not the answer because NPs are already stretched personnel-wise beyond their ability to handle enforcement. Most rangers I encounter are volunteers and some are reluctant to confront people over violations.

No dogs!

I take my dog in the wilderness and we meet a lot of horses but never had a problem (btw will those horse owners clean after their horses? Why it's different for them?). Granted, I had to step off trail on our first "encounters" until he got used to horses, but now it's easy going. Same was with cliffs. I think the only danger is someone taking an UNTRAINED dog and then getting surprised of "unexpected" aggression toward dogs or humans.

Lots of good comments on all sides.  The worst dog bite I ever had out of three was inflicted on my left ankle by an on leash yappy little poodle-type thing on the board walk between Old Faithful and Beehive geyser when I started to ask the well dressed lady owner to take it back to her car.  She threw a flying canniption fit when we started asking her for proof of vaccination for the pooch.  She seemed to think I should be showing my proof of vaccination instead.  Seems it was really my fault that the critter munched me because it didn't like their postman and my ranger suit reminded the poor little thing of a mail carrier.  (And that's a true story!)

But I have a solution.  Now that we can carry our firearms in parks, how about if we just shoot any hounds that "threaten" us?  My .357 won't make much more noise than most yapper/barkers and the problem will be eliminated.  And I am very easily threatened.

Seriously, though, this is a problem that has been with us ever since dinosaurs wandered around in Dinosaur.  It's not going to go away.  It's just gonna take wisdom and responsibility on all sides.

You can't let pets on trails in National Parks because people can't follow rules. Leashes? Ha! Pick up my pets poop? wha?! Believe me, once you let dogs in the parks the most devoted pet owners and park goers will abide, but the masses will ruin it for everyone now and in the future. Isee it now in my State Parks.

As an "anonymous" Park Ranger I wonder if you are really who you say you are.  Especially after the fairly closed minded comments you list.  I do believe as a Park Ranger one would run into a wide spectrum of people, and would have to learn to adapt to many situations.  Your comments are totally one sided, very generalized, and uncooperative.  I don't disagree that there are irresponsible dog owners, but if that is the main argument to ban dogs from parks I would have to also ban horses, and vehicles.  Horses are allowed in many parks on and off trail.  They are not required to clean up there poop, they damage trails immensely, and in some cases can be dangerous and scary to visitors.  Additionally, if you are a "Park Ranger" I don't think I need to describe the dangers and annoyances of irresponsible drivers.  The purpose of national parks are two-fold.  One is to provide access and enjoyment of our park to as many people as possible, and second to protect the resources that the park provides for the future.  With your argument for banning dogs I would argue you are not promoting a safe environment, but rather a restrictive.  If I were you I would read up on your employers mission again and think about doing your job.