According to CDC and FBI stats dog related fatalities/year in the US = +/- 30
According to CDC and FBI stats human caused fatalities/year in the US = +/- 15000/year
Dave, with all due respect, this thread is not about non trail dog or people attacks, it's about backcountry issues with dog encounters.
As I said, you made up the stats, since such stats do not exist, I looked for them a bit, and could find nothing that seemed even remotely related.
So try to keep focused on the actual topic of the thread.
If you expand the topic to an area so large that it no longer has anything to do with the topic, then I can bring in car deaths, smoking deaths, and a variety of other deaths that dwarf the question at hand, but unfortunately also have nothing to do with the question. Obviously, since car deaths far outweigh human or dog attack deaths, the clear conclusion we should make is to never drive to the trailheads, right?
Also, as I clearly indicated, the actual question was not deaths, it was attacks. On trail, backcountry attacks. Or off trail, whatever. Bringing in the deaths thing was just a way to polarize the question, which is yet another debate method I can't remember the name of that helps actually avoid the real question.
So this would be a variety of offenses in terms of clear coherent discussion. Making things up out of thin air, red herrings, and various other fun methods of ignoring the actual topic aren't very productive.
So let's return to reality, the question is actually about the number of backcountry dog attacks. I noted I've never experienced such things, never actually seen an aggressive dog myself, but I don't discount the experiences of those who have.
Note I'm not antidog, just anti stupid dog. I really have to scratch my head when the actual point is so far buried, makes me think you actually don't want to think of the actual question, or ignore it, or not admit it's a valid question.
So focus, the question is on back co8untry dog attacks. I have no data on that question, neither do you. My experience shows me it's not an issue to worry about, but other people seem to have different experiences. No idea why that difference exists, that's certainly an interesting question though.
I went for a day hike the other day and kept waiting for the barking aggressive dogs, but, denied, the dogs were all nice and well behaved, one woman I saw around a corner with a big strong dog, which made me sort of tense, appeared in front of me after rounding the corner with her dog perfectly controlled, to her side, very close, leashed, and didn't even raise a sound when it passed me. That would be a smart owner and a smart dog, an excellent combination.
You clearly were totally unable to read what I wrote, because something I said clicked some emotional trigger in your brain and turned it off. If you had read what I wrote, you would have noted that I am interested in the actuality of backcountry dog attacks, never seen it myself, never had issues with dogs on the trail, but am able to read other people's words and not get some emotional brain death. When I noted that if a dog lunged at, attacked me, I would consider that the end of the discussion, I also noted that is a situation I never expect to see. Note the non black and white nuance there? Try it sometime, it really works much better than flipping out.
The actual question is interesting, and actual facts on it would also be interesting. Also interesting to learn would be why some people have these experiences and others don't. Many actually interesting questions. That's why I said it's an interesting question. With actual facts, one could say, well, actually, there are only x number of backcountry dog attacks per year, making this y percent more or less likely than say, a mountain lion attack, which is statistically one of the least likely events to happen to a human being in the USA.
And the actual things that triggered the thread was not even an attack, but a stupid dog freaked out in nature and not properly controlled by the owner, a situation that isn't actually excusable. So the actual question is, given that largely inexcusable situation, what is society supposed to do? Blaming the victims is not generally smiled upon, don't you agree? Your other examples re people on the trail seem to have nothing to do with reality either, so I'll ignore them. As a person who likes dogs, think about the actual question, what are people to do when faced with a tense situation where they are not at fault, and where the outcome is not a given? Blaming them is not really very cool, there's steps those people can take, like pushing to have dogs banned from trails, I guess, which is why such regulations tend to be created.