Dave - The trails where I live are full of unleashed and poorly controlled dogs, I have had my leashed dog attacked twice, once by a large single dog and once by a group of three dogs. Both times the dog owner was indifferent because their dogs were family and they were not going to find fault with their pet. If you cannot keep your dogs under complete voice command and in sight at all times or if it is aggressive then you need to leash them on trails, anything else is irresponsible on your part and invites injury to your dogs, other animals and fellow hikers.

" If you cannot keep your dogs under complete voice command and in sight at all times..."

This is impossible. You cannot keep ANY dog under complete voice control.

"You expect the other person to know that your dog only wants to say hi? That is a big problem. You cannot expect others to know the intentions of your dog. If they don't like dogs they likely see every dog as a threat. Even if that is not the case, other conditions may cause them to see a threat where you do not. See my real life story above. I would have used whatever I had handy at the time?

I don't expect you to know the intentions of a dog. All I expect is for you or anyone else to respond REASONABLY when approached by an unknown dog. Just like in your real life example - your FIRST reaction was to step between the dog and your child, a REASONABLE reaction. Had the dog become aggressive you said your second action would have been to kick the dog, again, a REASONABLE reaction.... What you didn't do was skip straight to "I'm gonna pull out a knife and try to kill that thing" as others have written that they would.

Is it really too much for dog owners to ask others to react reasonably and not lose themselves to fear just because there is a gdog out on the trail?

Let's look at it from the perspective of a dog owner: Say my dog runs up to your kid to say "hi". You step between your child and the dog peels off. No harm. Say it comes in and you kick at it... also no harm.

Now let's look at it if instead, you just pulled out a knife and start waving it around... Or worse yet, as my dog comes up to be petted, you stab her... That's like pulling out a knife and stabbing a stranger hiking towards you because you don't know if they intend you harm or not.

Last I checked, more people get killed by bad humans every year than by dogs, so why don't you just carry a knife and try and stab every person whol looks a bit dodgey you pass on the trail?

I don't expect people to know a dogs intentions, what I do expect is for them to, given the choice between using a nonlethal way of defending themselves and a lethal one, choose the nonlethal as a FIRST option.

Is that really so very unreasonable?

I mean, be 100% honest: do ANY of you think it's unreasonable to expect people to choose a NONlethal option BEFORE resorting to a lethal one? That's the true quesetion here.

Edited by mailesdad on 09/06/2012 16:11:40 MDT.

"This is impossible. You cannot keep ANY dog under complete voice control."

You obviously have never been to a sheep dog trials. You would be totally amazed at what Border Collies can do being directed with only hand signals. You truly won't believe your eyes.

Having been both a dog and cat owner and still a lover of both, I really enjoy not having the expense or the worry of owning one. I see that there is yet another rescue of a dog underway in the Columbia River Gorge. Sometimes they have to rescue both the dog and the hiker. I agree that eventually on the most heavily impacted trails dogs will be banned.

The problem is whether the "victim" believes they have a non-lethal method at their disposal. Change my scenario to me carrying my hatchet. The dog is a Bull Mastiff. It barks at least once just before it gets to me. It decides to jump up on me to play. I can tell you that I would have hit the dog as hard as I could with the hatchet.

Someone else may feel just as threatened by a much smaller dog. I felt confident in my ability to protect my daughter from the dog. Not everyone will. The person should not be put in the position in the first place. The dog should not be endangered either. That is irresponsible dog ownership and ALL consequences are the fault of the owner.

BTW, in my case the dog only veered away about two or three "steps" from me. I should't have been placed in that situation. The owner is the one that deserved a kick to the head! ;^)

And yes, one should use a non-lethal method to stop an attack if they believe it will work and have the opportunity. However, it is up to the "victim" to make that determination.

Edited by Hitech on 09/06/2012 16:37:20 MDT.

"Don't you agree that's reasonable? Choose NONlethal first?"

It's as reasonable as me asking you to please keep your dog on a leash, but as you said, we live in the real world. If dog owners loved their dogs as much as they say, why not keep them out of potentially dangerous situations? Knowing that some people would kick, pepper spray or try to harm your dog on the trail.

Ultimately, I place my life and my family's lives above ANY animals. I'm not going to take the chance on trying to kick it, find a rock, etc. Most dogs are much quicker than I am. I honestly don't care if the dog owner loses the ability to think rationally.



Ryan

"You obviously have never been to a sheep dog trials. You would be totally amazed at what Border Collies can do being directed with only hand signals. You truly won't believe your eyes."

I have not, but I stand by my statement. The more/better trained the dog the more under control they will be. However, there is something that will cause them to ignore commands from their owner. There may be very few things, but there will always be something.

"As far as dogs on the trail... I always take mine with me, and they are almost always unleashed. That said...SNIP....My dogs are trail trained... when we see or hear people approaching I call them and they walk beside me"

Not doubting you per se, but EVERY dog owner says that as justification about why they can ignore leash laws.

My impression of this type of sentiment is:

"These laws don't apply to me because my dog is well trained".

Besides being a sentiment I don't agree with, it is also not truly the case I find in many instances.

Perhaps I am a bit of a meanie, but dog owners choose to take their dogs where leashes are required and should not think the regulation does not apply to them. They are just making it more difficult for the dog owners who obey the regs. Owners who flaunt leash laws make it easy for Open Space mangers to decided to ban dogs all together in an area. Plus, the dog owners have a choice: They can choose to go where leashes aren't required.

As for the fabled border collie who is a combo of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin and Mr Peabody, I doubt the average golden lab who is named "Whitney" with a bandanna around his neck and carted around in a Subaru wagon with CO-EXIST and/or INSERT LOCAL FOOD CO-OP HERE bumper stickers have that same level of training, discipline and experience as our legendary border collie (TM). ;-)

Back in my cycling days, about 25 years ago now, I read the wonderful Richard's Bicycle Book by Richard Ballantine. The best book ever written on the subject.

The section on dealing with dogs has always stuck in my memory. He advocates a take no prisoners approach. Suumarised here http://www.ditdotdat.org/bigcity/2007/01/how-do-you-fend-off-a-dangerous-dog/

Please note I am not endorsing this approach and have had dogs all my life. Currently one rather lazy retired Greyhound who is never off the leash.

"As for the fabled border collie who is a combo of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin and Mr Peabody, I doubt the average golden lab who is named "Whitney" with a bandanna around his neck and carted around in a Subaru wagon with CO-EXIST and/or INSERT LOCAL FOOD CO-OP HERE bumper stickers have that same level of training, discipline and experience as our legendary border collie (TM). ;-)"

Mags-

I rarely open-mouth laugh at posts on BPL, but this one got me. Bravo my friend.

Ryan

"Ultimately, I place my life and my family's lives above ANY animals. I'm not going to take the chance on trying to kick it, find a rock, etc. Most dogs are much quicker than I am. I honestly don't care if the dog owner loses the ability to think rationally."

Dog people look at their dogs as family members. You write that you are OK skipping straight to lethal methods even when you don't know the intentions of a dog to do you harm or not.

When you choose to pull out a knife, you are creating a situation that is about a million times worse. See, with a dog, you don't know if it is going to attack or not, but when you pull a knife, you are saying thet you INTEND to KILL, not just do harm.

Dogs bark for a lot of reasons: to say hi, to alert others, to warn you to stay, to threaten, to communicate. People only pull knives with the intent to kill.

Barking is a maybe, pulling a knife is a clear statement of "I intend to kill (what is to a dog person)a member of your family". By your own rationale, the dog owner would be perfectly justified in putting a couple rounds in you to protect himself and his family. You, not the dog owner, are taking the situation from "this dog MAY want to cause harm" to "this person INTENDS to not just cause harm, but KILL", all when you could easily control the situation without escalating it via many non lethal options.

It's senseless and it's stupid, and can only lead bad places.

Like I said, it's not about the amount of value you place on a dogs life vs a humans, it's about the amount of value you place on life, period. There is no excuse for chosing lethal methods when there are non lethal options.

Then train your dog to tuck tail and find you when someone greats it by pulling a knife, a trekking pole, a rock, a loud voice ...

Frankly, our three dogs are too large and powerful to hike with leashed, because they pull and surge too much. It's not safe for us. We could get knocked over in an instant.

The two Presa Canarios are 160lb each and the Tosa (our baby) is over 145 by now. I reckon Fangora (the puppy) will wind up larger than the two boys, but you never know. Either way, that's a lot to handle when they go all turbo on us! We got the three of them from a shelter in Crescent City, and we're not sure about their training but they sure do have mean stares.

Anyway, if you see Cerberus, Sanguinus or Fangora on trail, please do pull out your knife or hatchet. We're ultralighters, and it's a real PITA to carry as much meat as these three need. Go ahead, scream. It won't last long.

Now, Whitney, the yellow lab? Sounds like a nice dog.

We're beating a dead horse here Dave. We're just going to have to disagree. I value human life more than any dog's life. You are definitely a dog NUT.

p.s. - I never said I would pull a knife. I usually choke the life out of my numerous dog victims with my murderous hands. (I'm poking at you here - don't have a panic attack)

Ryan

Believe me, I have no dog in this fight. LIke Ryan, I live in a hyper-hipster western town full of uber-whatevers all that have two huge mis-behaved dogs that eat organic, natural and local food. (the owners and their pets) Nevertheless and with apologies for thread bifurcation here is a you tube video of how well behaved a dog can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri2Mdhkx18I

Dogs like this sell for 10s of thousands of dollars and would take years to train. Whitney, the local beast, is not worth anything and has had virtually no formal training whatsoever. Probably can't even walk on a leash.


Not wishing to be bitten as collateral damage I will sign off this thread.

doggies taste so good with black bean sauce ... yuuum ...

do aggressive dogs taste better?

dont view a dog coming up to you as a threat ... view it as an opportunity to fill yr stomach ;)

Sure, BC's are dynamite at herding (and most everything else for that matter). But they are trained specifically for that. That does not mean that there isn't something that will cause them to ignore commands. If you want a dog to ignore a stimulus, you have to train to THAT stimulus. If you don't want your dog to chase a bear, and you don't happen to have a bear handy, good luck on that training. You might find out at an inopportune time that Fido won't listen.

Or you could just keep him on a leash.

A dog trainer I worked with had a student with a GSD that put an OTCH (Obedience Trial Champion) title on his dog. That's no small feat. He worked relentlessly with the dog and the dog was flawless. Then he moved to the mountains and some deer went through his yard and the dog took off. The guy wasn't worried and called his dog. The dog kept going and he didn't see him again until the next day. He started training around deer and got to where his dog was reliable on recall around deer. But a deer is not a porcupine or a bear and it's a lot tougher to find them to train with.

Or you could just keep him on a leash.

"Frankly, our three dogs are too large and powerful to hike with leashed, because they pull and surge too much. It's not safe for us. We could get knocked over in an instant.
"
Train em. If it's not safe for you to be walking your dogs on a leash, why is it safe for them to be off leash around others? I know what you are saying as I've had a big dog before but I wouldn't have wanted him running over some small child on the trail. 150 lb dog vs 50 lb child? No question who loses that collision. My 80 lb, world's friendliest dog, Golden could also run one over if I let him run free. But I don't.

Erik, if your dogs are that bad, they should be left at home.
Duane

Owners, with dogs too big to handle, and too untrained to have on a leash, how cute.


*they* are THE problem.

Spend some money, train your dog.

14M ammonia will stop almost anything, destroying at least one of the five primary senses in the process. Appropriate for dogs and owners, irresponsible to use against bears and wolves.