Avalanche beacons on dogs

Hey all, <br><br>I am doing a little research and am interested in some general backcountry users input: <br><br>Ortovox just recently introduced a doggy avalanche transmitter (transmits only) that clips on their collar and transmits on the 457 Khz frequency (same as all transceivers that people are wearing). <br>I am interested in what those of you who use the backcountry think about the need for dogs to have transmitters on, and further what you think about them having one on that transmits on the same frequency (457 khz) as the tranceivers all us humans are wearing? <br>

My personal opinion is that my dog is my #1 backcountry ski partner, and having that status she wears a transeiver just like all my other backcountry partners.<br><br>I learned the hard way just how important it is to have a transeiver for dogs. Two years ago my dog and I were caught in a soft slab release while touring. I was able to anchor myself and let the slide pass over me but my dog got carried down with it and buried. I can't describe what a terrible feeling it is to have your dog buried and know the only way you can find them is with a probe. Luckily she dug herself out before I even got my probe assembled. She was visibly shaken but OK otherwise. <br><br>After that I went out and got her an Ortovox F1 that she wears on a harnesses. I've rigged it so the transeiver goes into a small camera case that attaches to the harness. I may look at getting her the doggie transeiver but I am a little concerned that it's transmitting range is smaller than standard transeivers.<br><br>As far as frequency I don't see a need for a seperate frequency, but then I guess I am putting equal value on my dog's life as I am putting on any other potential buried victim. I think it is vital to keep a search and resucue simple and adding a second frequncy for dogs could complicate things and make searches more confusing for finding both canine and human. <br><br>My opinion is that if you are going to wear a transeiver your dog should too.<br><br>

Hummm....<br>I can certainly understand J.Sammet's point of view.<br>On the other hand I would certainly feel horrible if my best friend perrished because it turned out that I dug out my dog first.<br>

I would not furnish a pet with a tranceiver which operates on the same frequency as those worn by my (human) partners.  What's more I would not tour in avalanche terrain with someone who considers their pet's life equal in value to mine.<br><br>Edited immediately to add:  Like Ron (who is often more polite and well-spoken than I), I understand the depth and intensity of bonding between dogs and humans.  I figure it's your option to tell your partners that you have no objections should they choose to dig out their pets before attending to you.  I imagine you'd want to discuss your own decision-making process with them before leaving the trailhead, so that they can make similarly informed decisions.  

"... adding a second frequncy for dogs could complicate things and make searches more confusing ..."<br><br>Not at all!! You simply ignore the old frequency, help the humans get unburied, and then take out your other transceiver and find your dog. The question is not whether your dog is worth carrying a transceiver for, it is if your partners are worth carrying a stransceiver for.

Wow, at first I was surprised by how scorching some of these replies seem. I stand corrected, maybe there is a good reason to have a seperate frequency for dogs. I didn't mean to imply that I put my dogs life ahead of my other ski partners. I was simply trying to point out the issue that if there is only one frequency by default one is placing equal value on canine life as human life if one chooses to protect their dog.<br><br>The dual frequncy system I was envisioning envolved a transceiver the owner wears that receives dual frequencies which I think could potentially present problems when going to search mode. By keeping it simple I meant that I would hate to be searching for my friends on my dogs frequency by mistake (i.e. push the wrong button or flip of the wrong switch).<br><br>As tim put it - a seperate frequency for the dog's beacon and a seperate receiver for the dog's beacon that the owner carries makes a lot of sense and would keep things simple. Don't worry Markharf, until such a system exists I will not ask you to go touring with me and my dog.<br><br>That said, touring with a dog in dangerous avalanche terrain or during periods of high danger is not someting I advocate. I leave my dog home as much as I take her. I evaluate it just as any other aspect of touring taking into account the terrain, weather and objectives of the tour and her ability. When we got caught it was sort of a freak occurrance. Yes it was high danger, but the terrain was realatively safe... or so I thought...which goes back to the whole decision making process. What is safe for me may not be safe for my dog and ever since that day she got caught I have evaluated terrain differently when she is on a tour with me. The soft slab that let loose was very minor (for me - 4") as I was able to anchor myself and let it go by. My dog however does not have ski poles to anchor her to the mountain and being only 60lbs even a small sluff that any one of us could quickly ski out from could carry her away and being small in stature (compared to a human) it is much easier for her to be buried. That is why she wears a transeiver.<br><br>Mountainvert - are you going to contact ortovox with the results of your research. I think the idea of a seperate frequency with a spererate receiver for the owner makes a lot of sense and is worth bringing up to them.<br><br>

Yes, I'll add another voice of keeping the frequency for dogs seperate. Whether I'm touring with you or not, if the dog has a beacon then I might be digging out your house pet instead of you. How many times have you heard of ancillary parties helping in a rescue? Lots of times. And they may not be privy to your decisions at the trail head. Maybe as the dog owner you can handle this risk, but think of the others in your group. Are they ready to die becuase you wanted fido along on your Saturday afternoon romp?<br><br>But then again, I can't stand dogs on tours. No matter how well "trained". It's a hot button, and that's all I'm going to say

As Tim pointed out, such a system already exists.  In fact, it can be had very cheaply, since lots of people have older, dual-frequency or single 2.275 khz tranceivers collecting dust in the backs of gear closets.  They're obsolete, of course, but available for the asking in almost limitless quantities precisely because they're rarely used anymore.  You might look into this and see if it suits your purposes.  <br><br>When I get a series of "scorching" replies to what I thought was an innocuous post, I generally take this as a sign I'm not communicating as clearly as I thought. Of course, I try to allow for the possibility that I'm being perfectly reasonable while my respondants are all evil, vindictive and/or ignorant fools...but so far this has rarely been the case.  YMMV.  <br><br>Edit to add: I happen to really enjoy a good tour with an enthusiastic dog.

Bravo, you all have gotten at the exact issues I hoped you would.  Scorching and controversial, huh?<br>I have been contemplating the idea of a dog transmitter for awhile now, as I think there is a need for one.  At times I have been skiing in popular backcountry areas I have noticed that the dog population often makes up 1/4 to 1/3 of the bodies on the hill.  I also realize that many people are against dogs being in avi terrain at all because of the risk that they may cause other skiers.  This is definitely an issue, yet there are many people that will bring them regardless and many that their dog is their primary ski partner.  I am a dog owner and often would take my dog skiing with me when he was still able.  I would have liked to had a transmitter on him because he is my best friend and I would be devastated if there was nothing I could do for him except dig him out dead with a probe search if a situation were to happen.  However, I would also never put a 457 khz transmitter on him because I would be even more devastated to lose a human skiing partner because I went after my dog first.  And those who are not dog owners feel even stronger in this regard.  <br>So, to answer your question J. Sammet, Ortovox has apparently also recognized the want for such a device as a dog transmitter, but in my opinion have made a GRAVE mistake in putting it on the 457 frequency!  So yes, my plans are to poll other BC users and see what their feelings are and then to approach the transceiver industry with this information.  Unfortunately, there still seems to be no clear solution to beacon-equipping our pets without some sort of cost to our human partners or our pocket-books.  So, let me ask you this...if a transmitter on the 227 freq was available to put on your dog with a separate receiver that you carry, would you be willing to pay another $300-400 for that?  That is probably what it would cost and I expect most people would only invest ~$100 to protect their dog.  this however, limits people from finding your dog if you are also buried.  And I doubt that they could find you, get your receiver for the dog and find it and get you both out alive.  What are your thoughts on producing new versions of transceivers that can detect both frequencies, that when switched to search stay on the 457 freq., and have a very obvious or more manually difficult way to switch to searching in 227, so that you would recognize that you were now searching for a dog because you had to make that decision?  Would you buy the whole new set-up to be compatible with your dogs transmitter even though you had a good transceiver?  Again we are talking $300+ here.  <br>

I agree that the current dog unit on the standard frequency is a bad mistake, even if the signal strength is different (as I recall there was some claim that it could be diferentiated in some subtle way). <br>My instincts tell me that it needs to be two seperate units. Otherwise, no matter how straightforward the switching of frequencies may be for the "human" unit, mistakes will be made which could cost lives.<br>And I don't see any way around the "what if the dog AND the owner get buried" dilemma, unless, of course, the dog owner wants to outfit the entire group with an additional beacon to retreive the dog. Personally, I wouldn't do it. I love dogs too, and don't even mind skiing with the ones that have learned to stay away from my edges on the downski and stay off of my tails on the upski. But why give your ski partners the opportunity to debate whether they should dig you out first, or the dog? <br>I think the obvious and most practical solution is the one that Tim and Mark already outlined, use the old, outdated units. I guess if I wanted my dog to accompany me on a ski trip bad enough I should even be willing to invest $300 - $400 in a new, modern designed unit that searched the old 2.27 frequency. I spent a hell of a lot more than that at the vet's trying to keep my last dog alive.

Three more thoughts.<br>1. Myself, and most dog owners I know that ski with their dogs would be willing to pay an extra $300 to $400 for a doggy system. As RonJ pointed out vet bills easily can run that range. It does not seem like a huge expense for ones best friend.<br>2. using the old 2.27 frequency beacons may be a short term option but most people I know who had them have long since discarded them. I had actually asked a couple of friends if they still had their old beacons when I was looking at getting a beacon for my dog and they had tossed them. I don't know how many old beacons would actually be available.<br>3. For those who hate dogs in the BC I certainly can understand. Articles have been written about dogs in the BC but rarely do I see any mention of doggy etiquette. If you are going to take your dog into the BC you need to spend some effort training it. Dogs can easily be trained to follow downhill and avoid skiers. You owe it to your dog to train it. I had a friend who accidently cut his lab's rear leg tendon while skiing. Talk about expense! The other two pet peeves I have are dogs that beg lunch from strangers, and crap on the skin track. Again, dogs can be trained - just takes a little effort.<br><br>4th thought - dogs can also be trained to find burried people. My dog can usually find a burried pack with a transeiver in it faster than I can with my beacon. If your dog has aptitude for search work invest some time in training it. Who knows, it may dig you out someday. If you do an internet search on avalanche search & resuce dogs you will find tons of info on the training of search dogs and how to assess if your dog has the right stuff. Hook up with a local patrol that uses dogs to learn how to train them. It is fun.

If you want a pair of single-old-frequency beacons, you might surf some up with a post to a high traffic board such as telemarktips and/or cascadeclimbers. I'm betting there are more packrats than you think out there who would love to convert their trash into a case or two of beer.<br><br>Regarding your market research question - Alas, my dogs are now too old for ski mountaineering (but still love flat-ish and well-packed XC trails) but if I were still turning with them I'd go for $300 per for the needed transceivers if they were available, though I'd try to get a few old ones for a case or two of beer first...

I noticed on ebay that someone is selling 4 old 2.27 beacons on ebay for $100, so there's one option for someone.<br><br>Deep in my gear catacomb I'm pretty sure I have an old frequency beacon, and I'd gladly trade it for beer if anyone is interested. Cash of course would work too.