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>