View Full Version : Dog Haters, should they be allowed out of the house?
generoll
06-15-2006, 09:17
W.C. Fields to the contrary, how do you feel about folks that hate dogs. Or small chiuldren for that matter? What about people who try to dictate how public lands or facilities are to be used. Should one persons or group of persons be given pre-eminence over anothers?
Do keep in mind that this is only chat and any resemblance between this and reality is purely coincidental.
Enjoy :D
Alligator
06-15-2006, 09:33
I think you need a poll;) .
hammock engineer
06-15-2006, 09:39
I don't hate the kids or the dogs. Just the parents and owners. I work in a resturant. All I have to say about parents is that mine would never let half of what some parents allow to take place.
People who can't control their pets or have kids they let act like animals, should stay home with both.
corentin
06-15-2006, 10:01
I second that.
Blue Jay
06-15-2006, 10:08
W.C. Fields to the contrary, how do you feel about folks that hate dogs.
I feel that people who drag painfully limping dogs through public parks should be arrested for abuse. When people stop for any reason and their dog falls into a deep sleep immediately, that person should be arrested for abuse. I often see people who hate dogs, that's why they enjoy bringing them on the trail.
D'Artagnan
06-15-2006, 10:29
I love dogs. I just hate the idea of being bitten. ;)
There are no bad dogs or children... only bad owners and parents.
... how do you feel about folks that hate dogs. Or small chiuldren for that matter? What about people who try to dictate how public lands or facilities are to be used. Should one persons or group of persons be given pre-eminence over anothers?........blah,blah,blah,.......Enjoy :D
In general, general...i've NEVER encountered folks that HATE dogs....just dont care for them in a shelter settings! (especially if its been raining!)
If hikers must bring their dogs....TENT, baby, TENT !:D
arffff, arffff
Rain Man
06-15-2006, 10:53
... What about people who try to dictate how public lands or facilities are to be used. Should one persons or group of persons be given pre-eminence over anothers?...
OH! You mean like dog owners who let their animals run wild out-of-sight and out-of-control on public lands, don't you?!!!
Now, what SHOULD victims of such dictatorial arrogance think of such dog owners claiming pre-eminence over other people, other pets, wildlife, and the environment?
Don't blame me, the Devil made me ask!!!
Rain:sunMan
.
Footslogger
06-15-2006, 11:08
I feel that people who drag painfully limping dogs through public parks should be arrested for abuse. When people stop for any reason and their dog falls into a deep sleep immediately, that person should be arrested for abuse. I often see people who hate dogs, that's why they enjoy bringing them on the trail.
===================================
Said it once and I'll say it again ...NO dog (if you could actually ask them) would willingly sign up for a long distance hike. Dogs are brought on the trail based soley on the owners desire.
Sure, dogs love running around in the woods smelling new smells and chasing a bird or squirrel. But I have yet to see a dog that appears to be enjoying itself after months of pounding out the 12 - 15 mile days on a distance hike.
I admire the dogs who have completed a long distance hike. I love dogs and I love being out in the woods with a dog. But I can honestly say that I would personally NEVER take a dog on a distance hike and it's NOT about other hikers either.
There are a lot of opinions on this subject ...and there's MINE.
'Slogger
Pacific Tortuga
06-15-2006, 11:53
Has there ever been a report of a "controlled dog" causing an injury to some one on the trail and ending the dream of thru-hiking? Dogs/animals are wonderful to be around but all whom experience them is not positive. Dogs are hopelessly phony to owners,they are always happy to see them but not always to strangers in their space. Bring them or not the debate will never end in a final consensus,its not like they're a cell phone which doesn't belong in the wildernous.
Has there ever been a report of a "controlled dog" causing an injury to some one on the trail and ending the dream of thru-hiking? Dogs/animals are wonderful to be around but all whom experience them is not positive. Dogs are hopelessly phony to owners,they are always happy to see them but not always to strangers in their space. Bring them or not the debate will never end in a final consensus,its not like they're a cell phone which doesn't belong in the wildernous.
I've never heard of a "Leashed Dog" causing injury. How many dog hikers actually believe they have an "Uncontrolled dog" The usual reply from the hiker with a "controlled dog" versus a "Leashed Dog" is: "Hes never done that before" or " what did you do to make him bite you" or "I can't believe he did that, next time you'll be on a leash" blah, blah, blah.
I've never heard of a "Leashed Dog" causing injury. How many dog hikers actually believe they have an "Uncontrolled dog" The usual reply from the hiker with a "controlled dog" versus a "Leashed Dog" is: "Hes never done that before" or " what did you do to make him bite you" or "I can't believe he did that, next time you'll be on a leash" blah, blah, blah.
Yes, and the unfortunate thing is that those people who think they have 100% voice-control over their dogs are dead wrong. I don't care how well you train a dog, the best you can expect is 80% effectivity. Dogs are unpredictable and 99.9% of people don't understand that many of the things we do are actually threatening to a dog - e.g. patting a dog on their head (this is considered a dominant posture and can be taken as a threat) or looking them in the eyes when we greet them (also considered an agressive challenge).
If a hiker pets a leashed dog and gets bitten maybe that hiker will know better the next time. Maybe, after their rabies shots, they'll go back to the trail with a different attitude about dogs, leashed or unleashed. Dogs should not be allowed on the trails because of the parasites and disease they spread to wildlife. All the other reasons are gravy.
SGT Rock
06-15-2006, 15:53
Almost been bitten by a leashed dog before, but I was faster than the dog or the owner. So yes, it is quite possible to be hurt by a leashed dog. A leash keeps the dog within so many feet of the owner in front of him/her, but when passing you are only inches away from the side of one. Think about it.
And dog hater, who knows. I don't think I know anyone that really hates dogs.
blah, blah, blah.
blah, blah, blah, blah......
fiddlehead
06-15-2006, 22:06
Interesting that i should log on today and see this as a new topic.
I have to now tell you what happened at my house 2 nights ago.
MY son was 8 months old so we had a small party and invited all the neighbors children and had a cake and drinks and stuff and it was all good.
When one group was leaving, a 2 year old girl was eating a banana and my neighbors dog was outside. When she got near the dog, he went after the banana and she fell down and was screaming. I came out and saw the dog over her growling for the banana. After everything was settled down a bit, ( the girl was not physically hurt) I went over to my neighbor who is also my best friend and i was fuming. We are no longer talking except to scream at each other. Her dog bit a small child about a month ago and i told her i didn't want her dog anywhere near my house or kid. She doesn't want to accept responsibility and is claiming it's my fault because my wife once fed her dog.
The problem here is a bit complex because she is one of those dog lovers who think that her dog can do no wrong. I watched her when this dog was a puppy and when it would jump up on tables to get food, she would say, "isn't he cute" ? I'd say no, not a bit cute to me.
I have a few choices now: get a slingshot (guns are not allowed here although i couldn't do that anyway) get pepper spray, move, or keep screaming at my neigbor and best friend until she realizes that she is a BAD dog lover.
I've seen these kind of people on the trail too and have described a few of those stories in the past. These people have a problem and need some affection or something that they believe only their dog can provide. That's ok in their house or away from others. But, when it comes to possibly disfigureing a small child over the fact that the dog was badly trained, that's very wrong and these kind of people need to know that.
The little girl that came to my party will most probably be afraid of dogs for the rest of her childhood. I blame myself partly also because i didn't put my foot down after the 1st time her dog bit someone.
So, today i will go buy that slingshot. I'd apprecitate any other advice if someone knows how to solve this problem.
Hey Fiddlehead, sounds like your neighbor might be a dog hiker. Thats just the way hikers with dogs talk and act about. One of these days some dog hiker might here "I don't know why my gun went off, its never done that before, at least not 8 times in a row"
Hey Fiddlehead, sounds like your neighbor might be a dog hiker. Thats just the way hikers with dogs talk and act about. One of these days some dog hiker might here "I don't know why my gun went off, its never done that before, at least not 8 times in a row"
Very sorry to read Fiddleheads story. The dog owner should not own the dog !! This person is wearing rose colored specs! This dog will most likely bite someone again.
I have posted my rules for hiking with my dog on several threads. Why ? Because owners who hike and have not trained their dogs hike and do dumb things which give other dog owners who are responsible a BAD NAME !!!!
If you are going to hike or backpack with your dog you might try these simple rules I use when on the trail.
1. Always keep your dog on a leash. You have more control if needed. I use a 6 foot leash attached to a belt system that keeps my hands free and ready to reel in the leash if needed.
2. Always move off the trail , give right of way to other hikers passing by.
There should be at least 8 ft between your dog and the trail and not 6 feet of leash and 2 feet to the other hiker. 8 feet means the dogs collar or harness is in your hand and your dog is sitting down at least 8 feet off the trail. This way your dog is under control, the other hiker can see that you are out of the way with your dog under control and pose no threat.
3. Take your dog off trail to take a dump or pee. Use LNT trace. Bury dog waste as you would your own. Dig that cat hole !!
4. NEVER EVER STAY IN SHELTERS !!! Tent or tarp 100 yards away !!! Dogs and shelters do not mix ! Dogs smell food, hear mice, and when there is rain your dog is going to be wet and maybe muddy. Why 100 ft away?? Because dogs will bark or jump up at hearing sudden sounds. Someone may get up in the middle if the night maybe head to the privy or something. If my dog should hear something and start barking at least it won't be in someones ears. Also the shelter might be full and other hikers could be in tents or tarps near the shelter, give them some space too !
5. Keep your dog away from water sources ! Carry the water to your dog.
I only section hike with my dogs from time to time and only for about a week when I do so. Nothing over 85 miles.
Hiking with a dog is a different type of hike, it can be fun but you must be responsible .... to other hikers, wildlife, your dog and to yourself. Above all train your dog before you starting hiking with them. ;)
LostInSpace
06-15-2006, 23:15
I've never heard of a "Leashed Dog" causing injury.
That may be true, but a dog on the end of one of those 30 foot clothesline reel leashes is still not under control. Particularly if you are trying to pass it on a narrow trail.
"Dumber than a box of rocks" is smarter than "a dog owner with dog on the trail." :D
That may be true, but a dog on the end of one of those 30 foot clothesline reel leashes is still not under control. Particularly if you are trying to pass it on a narrow trail.
"Dumber than a box of rocks" is smarter than "a dog owner with dog on the trail." :D
No, just an untrained owner with an untrained dog, both with no set way of how to hike, where to camp and just not being responsible. There is a right way to hike with a dog. Maybe you missed my post right before your last post entry. :)
..............If you are going to hike or backpack with your dog you might try these simple rules I use when on the trail. ..............
I have seen maybe 10% of all dogs on the trail with a leash attached, not including strays. I'm sure the odds meeting one of those actually following all the rules you outline would be about the same as winning the lottery.
Ridge,
Yes, I would say your right about that 10 percent (if that many?) . That is why I posted my rules. So many dog owners do not know how to hike with their dog. They treat the trail as if it was their backyard. This is wrong. Like I said hiking with your dog can be fun but it is a different type of hike. You have to enjoy having your dog along enough to care for your dog the right way and at the same time be responsible to other hikers, the wildlife and the trail. I find too many dog owners either don't know how, some don't care and some are just lazy. I hate to say it but alot of people don't hike but own dogs and still don't know how to own and care for a dog (take Fiddleheads friend as an example).:(
LostInSpace
06-15-2006, 23:56
No, just an untrained owner with an untrained dog, both with no set way of how to hike, where to camp and just not being responsible. There is a right way to hike with a dog. Maybe you missed my post right before your last post entry. :)
Yes, I did miss your post. Although you may follow those rules, most others do not. I have never seen anyone take their dog off the trail even when they have the dog on a leash. At best, they stand on the edge of the trail. Maybe passing a dog hiker obedience course should be a requirement.
You might add another rule: no more than one dog per hiker. More than once, I have seen someone with three large dogs on leashes. If the dogs decide to attack someone, there is no way the person would have been able to restrain the dogs.
I think that you would here of a lot more dog fights, those between leashed and non-leashed dogs on the trail, if the percentage of dog hikers went to about half and half instead of the 90% that don't leash vs the 10% or less that do. I know that somewhere on the trail someone like Chip has had his dog leashed and run into those that don't. When you got 2 unleashed dogs one can run away, thus no confrontation, but may end up a stray.
Yes, you have a good point for many reasons. Another one would be that it is hard to take care of more than one dog at a time on the trail. Also, the dog food factors in :) . My dogs carry their own. I may be an exception that I have hiked sometimes with two dogs at a time, both trained and on leashes, but sometimes they have alittle too much energy going down hill :eek: I have found that one dog is best too. I think I will add your rule to the list. ;)
I think that you would here of a lot more dog fights, those between leashed and non-leashed dogs on the trail, if the percentage of dog hikers went to about half and half instead of the 90% that don't leash vs the 10% or less that do. I know that somewhere on the trail someone like Chip has had his dog leashed and run into those that don't. When you got 2 unleashed dogs one can run away, thus no confrontation, but may end up a stray.
Yep, been there alright. Once had an unleashed dog try to come up to my dog and start a fight. I kept my dog in a sitting position behind my left leg. I have a nice twisted walkingstick I used which was positioned right at the oncoming dog (my staff is about 5' 6" long). The dog stopped, barked and showed its fangs but nothing more. This happened so fast and the owner came up to get their dog away from me. When they did this I gave them a piece of my mind. They said " my dog wasn't going to hurt you." I said " I don't give a damn and by the way your lucky I didn't hurt your dog". Believe it or not my dog just sat there thru the whole thing, not phased. Now for the real kicker ! My dog is a Treeing Walker Hound rescued as a pup, trained to hike with me and is not a hunting dog. I do not hunt. So dogs can be trained. Just look at all the service dogs and police dogs that are trained. It is the dog owners that need to be trained. ;)
LostInSpace
06-16-2006, 00:55
But training most dog owners is harder than training a beagle pup!
Ramble~On
06-16-2006, 02:02
True Story.
This past weekend was a full moon and I went out for a few days to enjoy it. Tuesday morning I was getting ready to make coffeee and had just brought my food bag down when I heard two hikers in a clearing near me talking about the confusing trail junction that confuses most people in that area and I went over and showed them the trail....We stood talking for about five or so minutes when a dog ran by and in the dogs mouth was my blue stuff sack that contained my garbage bag. At this point there was five days worth of garbage inside a gallon ziplock and that was inside a nylon stuff sack...... Somewhere out there is a bunch of garbage that I am responsible for because I left my food bag and garbage unattended for a grand total of maybe ten minutes.
This dog didn't belong to the hikers and must have belonged to someone camped in the area that I never saw...
My opinion of people bringing their animals into the woods hasn't changed very much from this incident. It was raining and while this animal was trompsing around under my tarp it managed to step its muddy dog paws all over my stuff.
This....another dog thread will no doubt turn out like all the other dog threads that have come before this one.
My opinion hasn't changed. It's a free world ?
Dog is tasty rare with a fine Chianti....makes pretty good jerky
Dog hides can be made into many usefull items.
:D I'm not a dog hater.....Dog is one of my favorite foods while in the woods.
Usually, its the food bag they grab, not the trash bag. Consider yourself lucky. This is the kind of stuff that goes on. I think a lot of the dog supportive people here at WB either haven't had this kind of experience or they are the ones with the dogs.
Ramble~On
06-16-2006, 02:34
True about the food bag, I was lucky...there must have been a lot of good "smell" coming from the garbage bag. Lets see....:-? Granite Gear Nylon Stuff sack...hmmmm don't remember how much I paid for it but fact is that I am out a few dollars from this.
On this same trip I met a College Student doing some work for the USFS...when I first met him he was coming down the same hill I was going up....in front of him on about a ten foot lead was a Husky/mute mix looking dog which barked at me and he said nothing and made no attempt to "step to the side" or stop his dog from barking at me. I could have reacted in many ways but instead allowed the dog to smell me and didn't make any sudden movements until this dog relaxed and no longer viewed me as a threat..I spoke with this guy for a few minutes and never did he apologize for his dog or try to pull his dog away from me...
If that dog would not have been leashed...I wonder what would have happened.
I think that in a lot of cases people are affraid to be alone in the woods.
I think that they bring their dogs along so that they feel less "alone".
I think that they feel their dogs will provide "protection" from "the dark, scary night" and all the wild things that are out there to "get them"
In this case the dog is along on the trip as a form of protection and therefore can be catagorized as being a "weapon" or form of defense.
I really wonder how many of these people would venture deep into the woods if they didn't have their "protection" with them.
ffstenger
06-16-2006, 02:58
I never had any trouble with dogs / people with dogs, for the last 8 years of section hiking until last year on a trip from Roan Mt to Damascus, I was snapped at by 2 off-leash dogs who were less than 2 foots distance from their owner, and was nipped by one dog who was ON A LEASH :eek: All of the owners said that their dogs NEVER bite..... Maybe it's just me, (and I like dogs) but I don't think I'll be comfortable on the trail with them any more :( Show-me
Your post reminds of Lewis Grizzard of the Atlanta Journal, telling the story about him standing in front of a store, dog at side. Lady comes up and asks Lewis does his dog bite, he replies NO. She reaches to pet the dog, the dog instantly bites the Lady on the hand. She exclaims, I thought you said your dog doesn't bite? He replies, thats not my dog!!
True about the food bag, I was lucky...there must have been a lot of good "smell" coming from the garbage bag. Lets see....:-? Granite Gear Nylon Stuff sack...hmmmm don't remember how much I paid for it but fact is that I am out a few dollars from this.
On this same trip I met a College Student doing some work for the USFS...when I first met him he was coming down the same hill I was going up....in front of him on about a ten foot lead was a Husky/mute mix looking dog which barked at me and he said nothing and made no attempt to "step to the side" or stop his dog from barking at me. I could have reacted in many ways but instead allowed the dog to smell me and didn't make any sudden movements until this dog relaxed and no longer viewed me as a threat..I spoke with this guy for a few minutes and never did he apologize for his dog or try to pull his dog away from me...
If that dog would not have been leashed...I wonder what would have happened.
I think that in a lot of cases people are affraid to be alone in the woods.
I think that they bring their dogs along so that they feel less "alone".
I think that they feel their dogs will provide "protection" from "the dark, scary night" and all the wild things that are out there to "get them"
In this case the dog is along on the trip as a form of protection and therefore can be catagorized as being a "weapon" or form of defense.
I really wonder how many of these people would venture deep into the woods if they didn't have their "protection" with them.
I sometimes hike alone, sometimes my wife and I hike a section of the AT,
and sometimes I take my dog along. I don't need protection. As a matter of fact I feel safer in the backcountry than I do going down town sometimes.
There are people who hike with dogs for the "protection factor". There are people who carry guns while hiking too. Once saw a hiker drop his back off a table at a shelter and some of his gear fell out and with it was a hand gun. Too bad, too sad, for those who need protection when common sense is all that is needed. :(
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 07:44
Once saw a hiker drop his back off a table at a shelter and some of his gear fell out and with it was a hand gun. Too bad, too sad, for those who need protection when common sense is all that is needed. :(
Especially need some sense if he was carrying a gun for protection and it was in his pack.
And even more so if it was carried with so little thought that it could fall out of his pack.
...When one group was leaving, a 2 year old girl was eating a banana and my neighbors dog was outside. When she got near the dog, he went after the banana and she fell down and was screaming. I came out and saw the dog over her growling for the banana. ...
Her dog bit a small child about a month ago and i told her i didn't want her dog anywhere near my house or kid. She doesn't want to accept responsibility and is claiming it's my fault because my wife once fed her dog.
I have a few choices now: get a slingshot (guns are not allowed here although i couldn't do that anyway) get pepper spray, move, or keep screaming at my neigbor and best friend until she realizes that she is a BAD dog lover.
I blame myself partly also because i didn't put my foot down after the 1st time her dog bit someone.
So, today i will go buy that slingshot. I'd apprecitate any other advice if someone knows how to solve this problem.
Hey Fiddlehead - I have a couple questions about the first incident. Did anyone call either the police or Animal Control? When the dog bit the last child, did it break the skin?
The reason I ask is that in CT any doctor treating a patient for a dog bite has to report it and that dog then gets a record of being a biter. Animal Control can quarantine the dog for 14 days and possibly even euthanize the dog.
Does the woman have children of her own? If so, she better watch out! Any dog that has learned that growling or biting gets him/her what he/she wants will do it again and it will get worse. And kids are typically bitten in the face.
I have alot of experience with this type of behavior and it has been the number one reason we have had to euthanize dogs in our shelter. It can be worked with if it hasn't gotten too far but it will never be 100% gone.
Another choice you have, instead of fighting with the woman and/or trying to kill the dog (both of which could also get you in trouble with the law) are to contact Animal Control and lodge a complaint. This should have been done a while ago from the sounds of things.
Good luck and if you need any other advice, I would be happy to have you email me privately (my wife is a manager of an animal shelter and we've done alot of work in this area.)
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 08:49
Sound advice plydem.
generoll
06-16-2006, 09:14
Well, I started this thread on a whimsical note because I was tired if all the blather about dogs on the trail. As if ANYTHING we say or do here makes the slightest bit of difference. Personally, I've never met a bad dog on the trail. I no longer hike with my dog cause he's old and doesn't want to go. When he was younger and he'd see me take out my pack he'd stay glued to my side for fear he was going to get left. Now he just goes and lays in his bed and looks depressed. On the subject of humans and animals however, I have a story that while somewhat off the subject does I believe make a point.
A few years ago I was dayhiking out to Plateau Point in the Grand Canyon. The trail from Indian Gardens goes along the side of a hill for a bit before it hits the top of the plateau and the trail has loose scree to the side and doesn't provide very good footing if you step off the trail. As I was hiking two "Rangers" approached from the other direction mounted on mules. Each was leading a pack mule. The rule in the canyon is that mules have the right of way so I stepped off the trail and stood on the mounded scree to the side of the trail to let them pass. I was partially turned away from them to try and give them as much room as possible. The first rider passed me and as he did so he made no attempt to move over and his saddle bag gave my daypack a pretty good whack which almost caused me to lose my balance, given that I was standing on loose gravel on the edge of a slope. His lead mule moved well to the side and never even came close to me. I turned to look at him expecting an apology or an excuse me and got nothing, not even an acknowledgement that he'd nearly knocked me off my feet. Then came the second rider with his lead mule. I was now better prepared and had my hiking stick dug into the ground for support which was good because what I got was a ditto. He hit me with his saddle bags and his pack mule moved to the side and passed me without incident. Now, the point in all this.
It's not the animals, it's the people that are the cause of the trouble. The lead mules acted with courtesy and consideration, the riders were ********. Ditto dog lovers and dog haters. Protect your stuff from all animals and dogs won't be a problem. There's no need to be intimidated by someone with a dog. If you have your food out on the table preparing a meal then it's fairly easy to ask them to keep their dogs clear until you're finished. If you've got your food scattered around the shelter, then haven't you already broken one of the cardinal rules? Food in the shelter will inevitably end up getting spilled. Hence the number of mice that inhabit every shelter. Follow commonsense rules and dogs won't be a problem. There's always the exception of course, but that applies to people as well as dogs and both species are likely to be here for awhile. Get over it.
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 09:26
There's always the exception of course, but that applies to people as well as dogs and both species are likely to be here for awhile. Get over it.
So in saying that are you trying to say that anyone with a problem with dog hikers should just give up trying to get the point across? Sounds like what you are saying.
Or maybe the fact is this is a forum. It allows people to talk about these things, that is just the way it is. and to try and tell people that they are wrong for being bothered by the dogs and they just need to learn to accept it and then to try and make people "get over it" is not going to work. So maybe if it upsets you, you should just get over it. After all, you also have the right not to read it.
W.C. Fields to the contrary, how do you feel about folks that hate dogs.
dogs don't belong on a thru hike IMO, but have you ever heard a thru not complaining about something from georgia (my pack's too heavy) to Maine (it's too hard)...the water source is too far, that guy/gal is smoking within 20 feet of the shelter, he/she hikes too fast/slow, slackpacking ain't thruhiking, i can't believe i have to do another 20 miles tomorrow, the climb up is too steep, i'm always wet and it's not raining, my nuts are chafed:D
Or small chiuldren for that matter?
i've only seen a couple of small children thru hiking and they behaved well.. but i've seen dogs that behave much better than children on day hikes
What about people who try to dictate how public lands or facilities are to be used.
one of these days, if we are truly successful, the trail will be wheelchair accessible:D
Should one persons or group of persons be given pre-eminence over anothers?
everyone should bow down before me when i pass:D
generoll
06-16-2006, 10:07
After all, you also have the right not to read it.[/quote]
Ditto, Sarge.
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 10:09
Yep, and now we have said our peace about that, the conversation about dogs can continue, and those that don't want to hear it can go back to ignoring it and those that do can go back to reading it.
Alligator
06-16-2006, 10:21
everyone should bow down before me when i pass:DTry wearing a robe and carrying a scepter. Works for me.
Come summer solstice, I pick out a special outfit, from the Emperor line. The people practically prostate themselves before my scepter then.:banana
otterman
06-16-2006, 10:21
I'm a dog lover, but bottom line for me? There have been more dogs causing problems on the trail than dogs not causing problems. I just love it when there is a large dog on the trail. It's standing between me and the owner, growling, and the owner says, "It's okay, he's friendly." I also have a hard time believing that any dog owner can ensure that his dog won't squat anywhere near a trail or shelter. I've seen the evidence.
Regardless if 100% of the dogs are leashed and friendly and can use the latrene on their on, the reasons the GSMNP and Baxter SP give for NOT allowing dogs on the AT should also be the same, and apply to, the rest of the trail.
Alligator
06-16-2006, 11:16
Regardless if 100% of the dogs are leashed and friendly and can use the latrene on their on, the reasons the GSMNP and Baxter SP give for NOT allowing dogs on the AT should also be the same, and apply to, the rest of the trail.And every state should follow Mass. law. All the state parks should follow Baxter State Park regulations, even the Maine parks. All the national forests should follow national park rules. State game lands in PA need to follow the GSMNP regs too.
a 2 year old girl was eating a banana and my neighbors dog was outside.
Question: Are there any laws in effect where you live regarding letting animals run loose? Must dogs be fenced or leashed when outside the house? If so, 1 point in your favor. Or can they roam the neighborhood at will?
Her dog bit a small child about a month ago and i told her i didn't want her dog anywhere near my house or kid.
Did anyone report the bite to any authorities? Is the dog now listed as a "biter" with the police or animal control? If so, another point in your favor. At least where I live there is no time limit for reporting a biting incident. Check and see if the dog can still be reported for the previous biting incident. If so, report it.
I have a few choices now: get a slingshot (guns are not allowed here although i couldn't do that anyway) get pepper spray, move, or keep screaming at my neigbor and best friend until she realizes that she is a BAD dog lover.
If the slingshot projectile goes astray and damages neighbor's property, you would probably be responsible. If the pepper spray drifted off your property and caused irritation to someone else, you would probably be responsible. Either way here, a point taken away from you.
I'd apprecitate any other advice if someone knows how to solve this problem.
Check on the "leash laws" or whatever they may be called in your area. If you have any such laws simply call the proper authority whenever the amimal is running loose. Then the court can hit the dog owner in the pocketbook. Some localities require the complainant to have a witness, some don't. Check your local laws, and then USE them.
More good advice for Fiddlehead from Fiddler, along the lines of what I mentioned in post number 36. Basically, do your best to use your local laws to deal with the situation and not get into a war with your neighbor. Unfortunately, because the owner refuses to take responsibility for the behavior of her dog, the dog will end up suffering the ultimate fate.
If they want to torture the bad dog just take it on a thru-hike, that'll do it.
Rain Man
06-16-2006, 12:29
... When she got near the dog, he went after the banana and she fell down and was screaming. ... Her dog bit a small child about a month ago and i told her i didn't want her dog anywhere near my house or kid. She doesn't want to accept responsibility and is claiming it's my fault because my wife once fed her dog. ... The problem here is a bit complex because she is one of those dog lovers who think that her dog can do no wrong. ... I've seen these kind of people on the trail too and have described a few of those stories in the past. ... I'd apprecitate any other advice if someone knows how to solve this problem.
Yep, we have those kind of dog owners right here on WhiteBlaze. I get sick of their God-complex, thinking they are perfection incarnate, know with absolute surety what their loose dogs do absolutely every second of every day, and anyone who says a word is a "dog hater," blah, blah, blah.
In your case, I suggest you get a neighbor or two to go with you (a la The Matthew Code, per Christ Jesus), and tell her you are there for that reason and all of you tell her that her dog and her attitude and her mantle of divinity are causing real problems (trespasses) for real people, including children (and other pets, I bet).
Hopefully she's not as supremely arrogant as some WhiteBlaze dog owners and she will listen to her fellow man's reasonable concerns and will repent and reform. If not, take it to the authorities. She and her dog are a danger.
Here in middle Tennessee, we recently had an elderly lady, walking on her own street, attacked and killed by two neighborhood dogs running loose. Don't let these dog owners with God-complexes berate and threaten you into submissiveness and acceptance of their self-pious, self-justified claims of perfection and righteousness. The louder they wail, the more obviously they have a problem, and it ain't that they or their pets are perfect nor angels.
Rain:sunMan
.
Yep, we have those kind of dog owners right here on WhiteBlaze. I get sick of their God-complex, thinking they are perfection incarnate, know with absolute surety what their loose dogs do absolutely every second of every day, and anyone who says a word is a "dog hater," blah, blah, blah.......
.
.......Hopefully she's not as supremely arrogant as some WhiteBlaze dog owners.........
Here in middle Tennessee, we recently had an elderly lady, walking on her own street, attacked and killed by two neighborhood dogs running loose.
Rain:sunMan.
I think I posted about the elderly lady somewhere here at WB on one of its many "dog discussion" threads. Was she the one that was unable to get into a car for safety because the car was locked? I think thats right.
Also, the woman with the attack dog sounds as if she is already a dog hiker from WB, so she may already be "supremely arrogant".
Alligator
06-16-2006, 12:48
Yep, we have those kind of dog haters right here on WhiteBlaze. I get sick of their God-complex, thinking they are omniscient, imagining with absolute surety what owners and their dogs do absolutely every second of every day, and anyone who says a contrary word is a "dog lover," blah, blah, blah.
No, I really don't think the "none" camp would be happy with a "some" compromise.
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 13:46
Well actually Alligator we don't have the option to compromise, it has been forced on us to accept. There is no compromise in that which we can make is there? The only place I hike were dogs are not allowed (GSMNP) the rule is not even enforced that well and I have witnessed problems. I guess the dog-hikers have decided that they cannot compromise on a few places without dogs so they do it against the wishes of others or the greater good. How is that? I guess if it doesn't make sense to them, they feel they can do whatever they want and we must again just put up with it.
But then again I will tell you why I at least don't support any dog hikers, at least on here. Because I see a general tendency of dog-hikers to always think it is someone else's dog that is the problem.
But if that were the absolute truth, then there would be no issues. But the truth is that even the people that post here as pro-dog and dog hikers, they themselves even admit they don't always follow the rules, and some at times even say they don't care if it does bother others. Some of the ones that say they are not the problem may not be, but as we have seen from the people with their stories: often the dog hiker fails to even see when they impact others. So "My dog isn't the problem" may simply be a false statement.
But back to the point of compromise: So if I agree to a statement that a dog should be controlled at all times on the trail, the individual that lets their dog run free and harass the deer, sniff your tent, and growl at you or your kids may feel he still has control and all is OK with the world. That seems to be the issue.
The person that has their dog on a leash and says he is good because he even has his dog on a short leash still ends up with his dog almost biting my sons face as his dog walks by us on the trail. So at what point should I like having the fact that on multiple trips being threatened or having my children threatened by an animal that shouldn't even be there?
Compromise I would be willing to make, the sad fact is I don't see anyone on the other side acknowledging that they are the ones that should be making some.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
06-16-2006, 14:58
The male dino wanted to get a large dog - something like a German Shepard - to hike with us for safety. I talked him out of it. As others have noted, many dogs don't appear to be having a great time after they have hiked hundreds of miles and hiking with an animal in tow means gong by different rules - like never staying in the shelters, having one hand free to hold a leash and burying the droppings of another being. I have enough to do while hiking just taking care of myself and the male dino - I don't need or want another being that requires constant supervision and cannot care for itself along for the hike.
BTW, we like dogs, but we don't own one because we travel so frequently that we would have trouble properly caring for a dog.
Alligator
06-16-2006, 15:04
There's BSP, GSMNP, plus off trail there are many more. If there were other places on the trail, I supsect Ridge would mention them. Off the AT you have many options though.
The folks that are breaking regs deserve to be fined in spades. Personally, I've seen a lot of stupid ****ing morons who own dogs. I am not impressed with rural America on this issue. People that say, "Oh not my dog" are the same people that say "Not my son" "Not my parent" "Not my spouse". Not everyone is a bad dog owner though.
I'm willing to:
Keep my dog on leash anytime I'm on the trail.
Keep the dog to the side/off of the trail when others approach.
Clean up after my dog.
Keep the dog on leash, out of shelters when near them.
Sleep away from the shelter.
Prevent the dog from chasing wildlife.
Keep it out of other people's personal space. No jumping, no humping, no nosing around etc.
Complete vaccinations and checkups for the dog, sick dog stays home.
When backpacking, a retractable locking leash. Belt loop through the handle. Firm hand on the collar.
Regarding my only hiking dog, there's one compomise in there. Is there anything else short of a ban that you might want as a compromise for my hypothetical dog?
Now, I seriously doubt to ever backpack with a dog again. Too much work taking care of the dog, and the dog can't keep up. But someday when I chose to get another one, I will take it out dayhiking. On trails where the dog is allowed.
I know it really doesn't matter given the climate of prejuidice, but I always followed the regs concerning my dog. It wasn't my dog who was off her leash. It wasn't my dog who growled at you. It wasn't my dog that bit you. It wasn't my dog that peed on your bag, or stole your food, or barked all night. I know because I was there with my dog as a responsible owner. The plain and simple truth is she never did any of those things and since she's dead, she never will. She wasn't perfect, but she's an angel now.
..........The only place I hike were dogs are not allowed (GSMNP) the rule is not even enforced that well and I have witnessed problems. ...............
Reminds me of what a Ranger told me about catching a woman with her dog at one of the shelters. And I paraphrase: " Well officer my family has a history of glaucoma and this is my seeing-eye-dog-in-training, her name is Ginger...." Just Funny. I've also heard of people trying to get MD statements saying their dog is needed for psychological reasons, and some needed dogs because of inner-ear balance problems. Try passing that off on the park rangers.
SGT Rock
06-16-2006, 16:39
Reminds me of what a Ranger told me about catching a woman with her dog at one of the shelters. And I paraphrase: " Well officer my family has a history of glaucoma and this is my seeing-eye-dog-in-training, her name is Ginger...." Just Funny. I've also heard of people trying to get MD statements saying their dog is needed for psychological reasons, and some needed dogs because of inner-ear balance problems. Try passing that off on the park rangers.
Actually last year we had a very similar debate on WhiteBlaze. The thing was there were people with real service dogs that were asking these questions and defending their right to their service dog. So I did some reading based on links they provided. To summarize what I found out:
1. There is no accreditation process or requirement for a service dog (or animal). Just about anyone can train a pet to be their service dog on their own without any federal standards as to what it must be trained to do or deal with. So the woman could very well legitimately claim their pet to be a service dog in training. That said, it is my experience working with such programs they do try to do a good job training and preparing these dogs to be around people and perform legitimate tasks. Yes I have worked with these programs before.
2. Prohibiting a service dog from entry into just about anywhere for any reason is a violation of the federal law on citizens with disabilities and guaranteed equal access.
3. There are no special marking requirements for a service animal. You can put a vest or something on them if you want to to make it easier on you, but you are not required to.
4. The "disabilities" can be pretty loosely interpreted. Say if I came back and claimed I have PTSD I could use my dog as a service dog. All she would have to do is provide some legitimate purpose for my illness. In this case she could have a cell phone with instructions for what to do if I was found in a bad way or carry my meds, or be a comfort dog for when I got in one of my moods. BTW, I do have PTSD, but so does about everyone that serves in combat. Mine just isn't a disability, at least I don't feel it is.
Note - when I say service dog, this is not meant to be confused with service dogs for military and police work which do have standards about performance and training.
And to Alligator, my dog is still alive, but probably not for much longer, she is near 13 years old, her hips are bad, she doesn't see well anymore and she sounds terrible when she does bark (which is very seldom anymore). I only hope she is still with us when this tour is over. She is one of my children to me and I hate to see her getting old, and since a dog passing isn't a reason for emergency leave in the Army I don't want to hear of her passing while I am not there to be with her. She is a great girl that never hurt anyone either. I controlled her and took care of her when we were on the trail like I would my children. But a few years back I stopped hiking with her because of how others can feel about dogs. I would love to have another companion like her someday but have decided I will not. I did compromise. No, I am not someone that has any prejudice against dogs, I have consideration for my fellow human hikers and my dog.
One thing we can all agree on, or at least I agree, that Genuine Service Dogs, like Orient (Bill Irwin's Thru-hike S-E-dog) should be allowed anywhere he is allowed. Sorry Bill, we still can't let you in the ladies bathroom (LOL).
Yes, and the unfortunate thing is that those people who think they have 100% voice-control over their dogs are dead wrong. I don't care how well you train a dog, the best you can expect is 80% effectivity.
80% is the accepted level of response in the training industry but it's not the best one can achieve. I own a dog training business and my two dogs have surpassed this level. I have reached a 97% response rate with my dog (Suzi) and 91% with our most recent rescue dog (Maggie). I'm confident Maggie will be responding like Suzi within another couple of months. People who think a dog can't be controlled are either lazy, ignorant in the area of training or a combination of both. Most people would rather have an out-of-control dog than invest the time and effort to properly train them. Again, it all goes back to the owner. The dog is simply a product of it's environment.
80% is the accepted level of response in the training industry but it's not the best one can achieve. I own a dog training business and my two dogs have surpassed this level. I have reached a 97% response rate with my dog (Suzi) and 91% with our most recent rescue dog (Maggie). I'm confident Maggie will be responding like Suzi within another couple of months. People who think a dog can't be controlled are either lazy, ignorant in the area of training or a combination of both. Most people would rather have an out-of-control dog than invest the time and effort to properly train them. Again, it all goes back to the owner. The dog is simply a product of it's environment.
"response rate":confused:
does that mean he responds to his name 80% of the time? or does it mean he does the thing you tell him to 80% of the time?
fiddlehead
06-17-2006, 00:06
Question: Are there any laws in effect where you live regarding letting animals run loose? Must dogs be fenced or leashed when outside the house? If so, 1 point in your favor. Or can they roam the neighborhood at will?
Did anyone report the bite to any authorities? Is the dog now listed as a "biter" with the police or animal control? If so, another point in your favor. At least where I live there is no time limit for reporting a biting incident. Check and see if the dog can still be reported for the previous biting incident. If so, report it.
If the slingshot projectile goes astray and damages neighbor's property, you would probably be responsible. If the pepper spray drifted off your property and caused irritation to someone else, you would probably be responsible. Either way here, a point taken away from you.
Check on the "leash laws" or whatever they may be called in your area. If you have any such laws simply call the proper authority whenever the amimal is running loose. Then the court can hit the dog owner in the pocketbook. Some localities require the complainant to have a witness, some don't. Check your local laws, and then USE them.
Sorry i didn't mention it that i live in Thailand. Believe it or not, there are not a lot of rules here. (that's one of the reasons why i like it so much)
Yeah, i guess rules would help solve my problem although i would still lose a friend and i am trying to keep my neighbor as my friend.
Most all of your advice here on whiteblaze is to go to the authorities and let them deal with it, that's their job. Well, life isn't like that everywhere and the authorities would probably poison the dog. (they do that every once in a while here when the packs get too big, and i certainly don't agree or want to do that to the dog)
So yeah, most of you will probably think that this is one of the hazards of living in a country without rules. And you're probably righ.
But i was looking and hoping for some sound advice on how to get this dog to stay away from my house and my son, and still keep my neighbor as my friend. I don't have to worry about missing with the slingshot. (Many people here use slingshots to shoot their food: lizards, geckos, birds, and even frogs although frogs are easy to catch) It's normal to see slingshots in peoples back pockets here.
but yeah, i could miss and hit somebody and that would really suck. so i was thinking pepper spray although i don't know if they even sell it here. (there's not much crime at all in Thailand although there are terrorist bombings in the deep south, but that's another story)
Anyway, so far, since it happened, my neighbor has kept her dog tied up but has let me know that this is not the answer as she hates to see her dog tied up. I must find a way to keep that dog from wanting to come near my house somehow. Most people i ask here just tell me to kill it if they are westerners. And the thai people really don't worry about the future too much so they don't think i should be sweating it.
But i do appreciate your imput and thoughts on my problem, those of you who answered me.
It means the dog responds to his/her name and/or a specific command.
"response rate":confused:
does that mean he responds to his name 80% of the time? or does it mean he does the thing you tell him to 80% of the time?
It means the dog responds to his/her name and/or a specific command. I personally think it's ridiculous that the industry has set the standard so low. I have found no problems getting the dogs I train to respond 90%+ if there is proper reinforcement of the training by the owner(s).
It means the dog responds to his/her name and/or a specific command.
I'd rather see a dog on a short leash with a 0% response rate, than an unleashed one with a 99% response rate. That 1% percent might be me.
It means the dog responds to his/her name and/or a specific command. I personally think it's ridiculous that the industry has set the standard so low. I have found no problems getting the dogs I train to respond 90%+ if there is proper reinforcement of the training by the owner(s).
It would be nice if everyone who owned a dog was a dog trainer. Unfortunately, most dog owners are regular people who don't want or feel they need to have that level of training for their dog. I know I don't and I am probably more in tune to that than most dog owners because of my work in rescue and with various trainers.
I am in agreement with Ridge on this one (shocking, I know). Dogs off-leash on the trail can be a danger no matter how well they are trained. Like he said, it will never be 100% and that means that there is always a chance the dog won't respond. Not only could this be dangerous to the other hikers but for the dog as well. I know a woman who had her dog trained like yours and this dog was everything to her (she did agility competition with him). One day she got home and she never had the dog on leash getting out of the car because the dog always went right to the front door. Well, unfortunately, the dog saw his buddy across the street and he decided to go see him. Unfortunately, there was a car coming and the dog was hit and killed right in front of her. I hear that alot in rescue which is why we hammer into any potential adopters head that the dog should be on leash at all times when outside of a secure fenced area.
Rain Man
06-17-2006, 09:26
I think I posted about the elderly lady somewhere here at WB on one of its many "dog discussion" threads. Was she the one that was unable to get into a car for safety because the car was locked? I think thats right....
Don't know about any locked car. Here's a quote and link to a recent Tennessean article, though--
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060617/NEWS01/606170353
"The local prosecutor wants to euthanize two dogs implicated in the mauling death of a Franklin County woman, but their owner has declined his request."
"The Gammada family lives a short drive from the home of Dianna Acklen, 60, who died May 6 after being bitten repeatedly while walking down the county road."
"On June 1, forensic dentist Mike Tabor concluded that one of Gammada's dogs participated in the attack on the woman, who suffered 200 to 300 dog bites on her arms, legs and torso. Two other dogs, the second mixed Pyrenees and a mixed breed owned by Ronnie Swann, also of Knight Church Road, were probably participants in the mauling, according to Tabor."
"Gammada's dogs are named Cuddle and Yorkie. Authorities have not said which one was implicated in Tabor's report as the primary attacker in Acklen's death."
"In a previous statement, Acklen and his two grown children announced that they agreed with the district attorney's decision not to file criminal charges against the dog owners, but the family said they wanted the animals involved to be put down."
-----
As is so often the case, the victims are willing to be decent folks and to take a reasonable, moderate approach, while the dog owners are taking the extreme approach of "my doggie is an angel and the facts can't convince me of the truth and I'm gonna believe whatever I want to believe."
Why are some dog owners such extremists, in other words, and refuse even reasonable, moderate rules, and sink to name-calling anybody and everybody who doesn't agree with their extremism? I'm a moderate on this issue, as most issues, but the "my rights-trump-your-rights" dog-owning extremists do bother me.
Rain:sunMan
.
Nightwalker
06-19-2006, 10:42
Said it once and I'll say it again ...NO dog (if you could actually ask them) would willingly sign up for a long distance hike. Dogs are brought on the trail based soley on the owners desire.
'Slogger
Yeah, like my dog that I have to make sure is firmly on the leash when we get to the car, because otherwise, she'll run and hide in the woods.
No matter how many days we're out, she always wants one more.
Of course, I don't bring her on the AT. Too many sissified, argumentative city boys who think the woods are no place for four-legged friends...
Dog haters need therapy.
:D
Blue Jay
06-19-2006, 12:16
One thing we can all agree on, or at least I agree, that Genuine Service Dogs, like Orient (Bill Irwin's Thru-hike S-E-dog) should be allowed anywhere he is allowed. Sorry Bill, we still can't let you in the ladies bathroom (LOL).
Sorry can't agree. Orient was always welcomed on the trail, a truly great dog. Bill who fall on a him day after day after day does not belong anywhere near a trail.
I've never really come across a dog hater, but I have had negative run-ins with dogs and BAD owners, giving dogs on trails a bad name. I hike with my dog on a retractable leash when there's no one else around I let the leash out (~12 feet). When near others he's on a short lead, he hasn't bitten anyone, but it is no garentee he won't try it the future. I don't let him wade in water sources, that's want his portable bowl is for, he drinks when I drink. He goes off the trail himself when he poops, but I use my trowel to bury it anyway, just like my own. I've had to deal with other people's dogs trying to get my food at shelters/campsites, so I know what a pain that is. He stays tethered in camp, the only time he's not is in the tent (hogging the space!!). Hopefully there are other dog owners that use similiar methods, whether on-trail or off. The more we think about what we're doing the nicer the trail will be.
Dog lover here! Own one (& 4 cats). I would never go on an extended hike w/ her. However, I do have an unleashed neighbor who has (last count) 8 dogs, who are just as untrained as she is. I very much dislike those particular dogs.
I have found a quick solution... (yet to be tried, but the info is out there) No guns, no slingshots, no antifreeze... just slip them a few pieces of Trident gum...
my dog has been trained to respond when someone raises their hiking stick like they are going to take a swing at him. 100% response rate, and quite the response time as well. the command is dissarm.
Hopefully there are other dog owners that use similiar methods, whether on-trail or off. The more we think about what we're doing the nicer the trail will be.
I have to agree with oyvay and others who have made a responsible effort to control their dogs and enjoy their time with them on the trail. I have taken dogs hiking, both leashed and not (not my dog one of my scout masters) and they were all good (the scout masters dog actually kept the racoons and porcupines away one night on the loyalsock trail in PA). But just like people no dog is perfect and no owner is either. None of the dogs I have been hiking with have ever attacked anyone, begged for food, growled or done any other doggy no-no's. Even so I always remember that a dog is an animal and animals are unpredictable. Unfortunately there are some real bad owners out there that give all dog owners a bad name. But there are some real hard heads against dogs on the trail, too. I agree that you have had dogs forced on you, but remember not all dogs and owners are as bad as the horor stories posted on here. I love my dog (the first I have owned), but he is still a puppy (1 and 1/2 years old rescued pit bull with some lab we think) I have used a combination of methods to train him and he is very good both on and off leash. But I take the time to work with him and correct bad beheaviour. He usually doesn't bark, he never growles anymore (corrected that in 1 week) and he is more likely to lick you to death than anything else, even so I still do not know whether I would take him on a long hike. I'm sorry so many people feel so strongly one way or the other about dogs on the trail. And I know I won't change anyone's feelings, maybe I'll just bring my cat (be good for the mice:D ).
Programbo
06-26-2006, 22:03
I think it is a huge leap to lump anyone who doesn`t want dogs on the AT as being a "dog hater"..I love friendly dogs and am always the first to play with them when I see them at peoples homes or businesses I go to where I KNOW the dog and KNOW he`s friendly to me..But I don`t think people should have dogs forced upon them on the trail...YOU might know your dog is the happiest friendliest thing on 4 paws but the people who see him coming around the bend don`t know that and it gives them an uneasy nervous feeling which is something no one deserves to have forced on them in what should be a relaxing place...The trail is no place for dogs..I know this is pointless to argue in this day and age but that`s my feeling
Ramble~On
06-26-2006, 22:28
:banana I'm happy to see this thread is still going..
I hope someone else will start another dog related thread soon.
Ramble~On
06-26-2006, 22:31
:-? "Licked to death" is still dead.
Creepy Uncle
07-04-2006, 08:59
:-? "Licked to death" is still dead. it was a fun life
I have owned a dog a good part of my life. Before I thru-hiked in "01" I thought that it would be great to share a long hike with a dog.
Fact is; 80% of those who attempt a thru-hike will fail for one reason or another. I would imagine that those who start a thru, with a dog, have a much higher rate of failure. For those who want to do a thru-hike, and take a dog along, you should realize that you are bound to fail.
During my thru I hiked at different times with a gal who hiked with her dog. The dog was well liked by most hikers and was well behaved. I beleive they both finished. I also saw many instances where a dog caused problems for it's owner and for other hikers.
My conclusion is: A dog does not belong on the AT. Leave it home and do a service to both you and your dog.
Ramble~On
07-06-2006, 03:30
my dog has been trained to respond when someone raises their hiking stick like they are going to take a swing at him. 100% response rate, and quite the response time as well. the command is dissarm.
:eek: You are the 100% Typical Dog Owner and your post is 100% pure and simple proof of why dogs on the trail are and always will be a source of great debate.
Why would anyone "raise their hiking stick" at your dog to begin with. Being the model, responsible dog owner your dog of course would be at your side, leashed and in no way threatening to anyone right ? It's not like your dog would be inside the shelter, snapping and growling at your fellow trail users when they made sudden movements right ?
Ramble~On
07-06-2006, 03:36
Oh by the way, Hello Creepy uncle welcome to WhiteBlaze
Creepy Uncle
07-06-2006, 11:50
my mom always warned me about joining groups that would allow me as a member.:-?
Hi everybody! my name is Creepy for short, i'm a Sagitarrius, enjoy sunny days, walks in the park and the occasional long-term dosage of powdered eggs.
:D
and Mr wind, me thinks i detected a hint of sarcasm in the "disarm" comment. At least he doesn't need a "not kill" command after the dog automatically has your throat. you jumped on him like an ex-smoker having a nic-fit.:p
draw 4
bearbait2k4
07-06-2006, 23:25
It means the dog responds to his/her name and/or a specific command. I personally think it's ridiculous that the industry has set the standard so low. I have found no problems getting the dogs I train to respond 90%+ if there is proper reinforcement of the training by the owner(s).
That's great that you have a strong grip on your dog's obedience out in the real world, but bringing a dog into an environment like the trail for an extended amount of time will change the dog's behavior. They sometimes become more dependent and/or possessive over their owner, and will have a very similar appetite as a thru hiker, as time goes by. Does that mean that your well-behaved dog is going to stay put when a rabbit or squirrel runs across the trail, if they have the reputable hunger that hikers get?
I just see no reason to not have a leash on a dog when you are out in public, regardless of how trained the dog may be. There is always that small chance that the dog may act like an animal.
sliderule
07-07-2006, 10:21
I just see no reason to not have a leash on a dog when you are out in public, regardless of how trained the dog may be.
So all dogs should should be treated the same, even though only some dogs are inadequately trained? Is it fair to stereotype dogs that way?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-07-2006, 10:32
As has been noted, both dogs and people do act differently when hungry and tired. The best trained dogs often do unexpected things when faced with a bolting rabbit / squirrel, etc.; strange people & dogs; larger wildlife; food being consumed other than at a table; and unfamiliar sleeping situations. I'm not sure why so many object to keeping their animals on a leash - especially at group camps and shelters.
Rain Man
07-07-2006, 10:49
I just see no reason to not have a leash on a dog when you are out in public, regardless of how trained the dog may be. ...
I think it's funny (HAR HAR) that some dog fanatics refer to professionals as proof that dogs can be completely controlled by voice. Yeah, right. "Complete" means complete, 100%,-- not 75%, not 90%, not 95%, but 100%.
Whenever I see professionals (law enforcement, trackers, etc.) with their dogs (it's always on television) I'd say 99% of the time the dogs are on leases. If even these professionals (referred to as examples of allegedly having total voice control) with complete voice control keep their animals on leases, then maybe they know (or are just willing to admit) something that dog fanatics aren't.
What gives with dog fanatics deluding themselves and thinking they can delude the rest of us?
Personally, I'd LOVE an HONEST "debate" (discussion) about dogs on trails. But it's so hard to have one with fanatics who make such wild, hyperbolic claims.
If a dog fanatic said "you can achieve voice control in the wild a majority of the time" (or some such), we'd have a reasonable discussion. Once they go off the deep end with "complete control" absurdities, the reasonable discussion is over in my book. No need to debate the existence of unicorns.
Being an honest person does not make one a dog hater. Might make one a dog lover, in fact.
Rain:sunMan
.
bearbait2k4
07-07-2006, 20:44
So all dogs should should be treated the same, even though only some dogs are inadequately trained? Is it fair to stereotype dogs that way?
Blow me, sliderule.
There is no reason to follow my posts around and try to instigate anything.
RainMan, I couldn't agree more with you, and wish that a reasonable compromise would come about the endless discussions concerning dogs and safety on the trail. What I see happening, unfortunately, is an eventual ban on dogs throughout most National Parks if people keep being irresponsible about their dogs. It's sad to think that, because dogs can be good companions out in the wilderness (as far as long term, as in thru-hikes, I'm not sure), if you take responsibility for your pet.
.....an eventual ban on dogs throughout most National Parks if people keep being irresponsible about their dogs. It's sad to think that, because dogs can be good companions out in the wilderness (as far as long term, as in thru-hikes, I'm not sure), if you take responsibility for your pet.
I hope you understand that the reason(s) for NP's to ban dogs was not because of behavioral problems, but because of disease and parasites the domesticated dog spreads so easily to wildlife. They still allow pets in restriced areas of the park. And, all dogs should be leashed 100% of the time when on any hiking trail.
Ramble~On
07-08-2006, 04:46
Creepy Uncle..
Yes. :eek: .
IMHO a good deal of people have dogs with them on the trail because they have a fear of being alone in the woods, a deeper fear of being alone at night in the woods and are insecure to the point of viewing the dog as a form of defense as well as offense.
It is also my opinion that most of these dogs owners are inconsiderate when it comes to other users of the trail, shelters and water sources.
Blue to you. DRAW Four
generoll
07-08-2006, 08:49
Well, I guess that I should have known better then to start a thread that had the word "dog" in it. For the record, I used to hike with my dog all the time except during the "season"n the AT. I left him home then for one simple reason. Most thruhikers, wannabes or not don't have the simplest notion of field sanitation. When I did the Standing Indian loop a few years ago during March I spent one crowded night in the new Carter Gap shelter. Every person there had a cell phone, but I was the only one that was carrying a trowel. I saw one of the hikers drop his britches right behind the shelter and fire off a loaf from a standing position and make not the slightest effort to bury it. Just dropped it, wiped and dropped that as well and moved on.
What's this have to do with dogs? Mine had a charming habit of rolling in anything that stunk. He was friendly, walked behind me and usually ignored other hikers, and stepped off the trail to drop his load but the SOB would slink off whenever he caught a whiff of stink. Made him pretty unwelcome in my tent I must confess.
Most of the trails he and I took were off the AT and a lot less traveled. None of the few hikers that I ever encountered ever complained about him, but I left him home when I hiked the AT because of the poor manners of the hikers, not because I feared that he would bite someone. I kept him leashed in camp and let him roam when we hiked. After the first mile he settled down and walked right behind me and was never a problem. None of the hikers dogs that I've met on the AT ever gave me the slightest pause. There's a regular thru-hiker that hikes with a dog named Annie and as far as I can tell, she ignores anyone but her master. More hikers should be as mannerly as she is.
My dog's too old to hike now and just thumps his tail when I pull out my pack, but I enjoyed his company on the trail. He wasn't much of a conversationalist, but he was a good listener and never once declared my comments to be BS.
This thread was started on a whimsey and I'd hoped that the title would make that obvious and people wouldn't get their panties in a wad over it. Guess I shoulda known better.
Woof!
Rain Man
07-08-2006, 09:17
This thread was started on a whimsey and I'd hoped that the title would make that obvious and people wouldn't get their panties in a wad over it. Guess I shoulda known better.
I'm too polite to call you a bald-face liar. [Said whimsically.]
Your original post that started this thread speaks for itself.
Do keep in mind that this is only chat and any resemblance between this and reality is purely coincidental.
Enjoy :D
Rain:sunMan
.
:eek: You are the 100% Typical Dog Owner and your post is 100% pure and simple proof of why dogs on the trail are and always will be a source of great debate.
Why would anyone "raise their hiking stick" at your dog to begin with. Being the model, responsible dog owner your dog of course would be at your side, leashed and in no way threatening to anyone right ? It's not like your dog would be inside the shelter, snapping and growling at your fellow trail users when they made sudden movements right ?
twice, someone has been holding their stick in an aggressive way towards my dog as we met on the trail, with no prevocation from the dog. once he was kicked by a fellow in camp for walking too close. my dog wears a pack that has a handle that sticks up through the back of it from the harness that is underneeth. when i meet someone on the trail i move well off to the side. i make sure that i am always positioned between the dog and trail with a firm grip on the handle. he also sits on command. when i am hikiing he walks directly behind me, always. i don't stay in shelters, with or without dog. too many dog nazis there. the only time he has ever growled at anyone was when he was on a leash. see, on a leash most dogs feel that they should perform a more protective duty than when they are free. a working/not working situation.
in respect to dogs, mine and others. if an agressive dog approaches you or acts angry, why would someone want to take a risk of pissing the dog off more by whacking it with a stick? doing that to the wrong dog could result in a greatly escalated situation.
bearbait2k4
07-08-2006, 10:34
I hope you understand that the reason(s) for NP's to ban dogs was not because of behavioral problems, but because of disease and parasites the domesticated dog spreads so easily to wildlife. They still allow pets in restriced areas of the park. And, all dogs should be leashed 100% of the time when on any hiking trail.
Actually, I didn't know that, but that makes perfect sense.
That's another concern that I didn't even think of; the environmental impact a dog has. Of course, prevention of disease and parasites also tend to fall back on the owner, but this can also fall into the category of the unknown behavior and encounters in the wilderness that just cannot be predicted. It's definitely something to think about if you're a dog owner.
Ramble~On
07-09-2006, 01:05
twice, someone has been holding their stick in an aggressive way towards my dog as we met on the trail, with no prevocation from the dog. once he was kicked by a fellow in camp for walking too close. my dog wears a pack that has a handle that sticks up through the back of it from the harness that is underneeth. when i meet someone on the trail i move well off to the side. i make sure that i am always positioned between the dog and trail with a firm grip on the handle. he also sits on command. when i am hikiing he walks directly behind me, always. i don't stay in shelters, with or without dog. too many dog nazis there. the only time he has ever growled at anyone was when he was on a leash. see, on a leash most dogs feel that they should perform a more protective duty than when they are free. a working/not working situation.
in respect to dogs, mine and others. if an agressive dog approaches you or acts angry, why would someone want to take a risk of pissing the dog off more by whacking it with a stick? doing that to the wrong dog could result in a greatly escalated situation.
If you did with your dog on the trail as you say you are an exception and in the extreme minority from what I have seen and experiences that I have had.
Once you say your dog was kicked in camp for walking too close to someone....was that at a shelter or a campsite....and why was your dog within kicking distance of someone...that's gotta be ? 3 feet..
Were you not between the person and the dog as you claim with "a firm grip on the handle" was the dog loose to roam within kicking distance? was the hiker cooking ? eatting ? was the dog about to put wet and muddy paws on some of his gear ? or did this hiker without any provocation at all lunge out and kick your dog for no reason...
Kicking the dog was wrong in my opinion but I wasn't there and don't know what led the hiker to kick your dog....did the hiker say anything to you like
"Excuse me sir could you keep your dog away from me and my gear"
If it were me I wouldn't get mad at the dog..the dog is a dog and kicking it wouldn't do anything positive..but I would let you know that I didn't want your dog anywhere near me or my gear....how would that make you feel?
If I told you..."Hey, I've had a long day and I'm trying to relax, cook, eat and organize my gear for the night...would you mind keeping your dog away from me and my gear" Would that be "inconsiderate" of me ? Would you label me a "DOG NAZI" or would there be "a greatly escalated situation"
You mention the only time your dog growls at people is when he's leashed...Pardon me but most places have leash laws and it would only make sense to have your dog leashed on the trail and if I were happily going about my day and ran into you and your growling dog I'd probably not be very comfortable with the situation or with you. I don't see any need what so ever for any hiker to have to have an encounter with a growling dog on the Appalachian Trail.
"If an aggressive dog approaches you or acts angry" Well.....somehow that image doesn't quite fit in with my image of a "wilderness experience" and is exactly why I hold the opinion that I do about dogs on the AT.
The majority of dog hikers, especially the ones who don't keep a leash on their dog, take offense to any comments or request by other hikers. I've personally seen, and read here at WB of similar ones, on probably my last stay at a shelter years ago, we had a full shelter and a guy with his 2 dogs were taking up about 4 spaces on the shelter platform. A couple asked could the guy move his dogs to the floor and give more room, his reply was, we were here first, and mumbled something about it was too cold for them to be on the floor. This kinda crap is what goes on and just another reason for pets to be banned, if not from the entire trail, then at least the shelters. A lot of people here at WB take up for dogs being on the trail, thats because they haven't done enough backpacking to know the real story. I would say 90% of all hikers with dogs just don't give a damn what others think about their dog, and I have never, ever seen a dog hiker bury or pack-out dog crap. I did see a guy that had tied his dog off to a tree next to a shelter, flip the dog crap into the brush with a stick. And, when an unleashed dog and owner are approaching a shelter, you can bet the first thing the dog does is pee on the shelter wall, or picnic table leg or both.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-09-2006, 07:12
In regard to striking animals with staffs, poles, anything handy - that is just wrong unless the animal is behaving aggressively enough to cause geniune fear for one's safety and no less drastic alternative exists.
I do believe dogs get hit while hiking as I've met several dogs on the trail that appeared to be afraid of or suspicious of my twin metal off-set canes. Several have adopted an aggressive stance and growled or barked at me. I know enough about dogs to know how not to escalate the situation, but I can sure see how someone that did not have any training in dealing with dogs could whack the %$#@ out of a dog that is baring its teeth and growling.
As I said earlier, putting a dog in an unfamiliar environment where it will be exposed to many new sights, smells and sounds is taking the risk that the animal's training - however excellent - may be overridden by its natural instincts.
If you did with your dog on the trail as you say you are an exception and in the extreme minority from what I have seen and experiences that I have had.
Once you say your dog was kicked in camp for walking too close to someone....was that at a shelter or a campsite....and why was your dog within kicking distance of someone...that's gotta be ? 3 feet..
Were you not between the person and the dog as you claim with "a firm grip on the handle" was the dog loose to roam within kicking distance? was the hiker cooking ? eatting ? was the dog about to put wet and muddy paws on some of his gear ? or did this hiker without any provocation at all lunge out and kick your dog for no reason...
Kicking the dog was wrong in my opinion but I wasn't there and don't know what led the hiker to kick your dog....did the hiker say anything to you like
"Excuse me sir could you keep your dog away from me and my gear"
If it were me I wouldn't get mad at the dog..the dog is a dog and kicking it wouldn't do anything positive..but I would let you know that I didn't want your dog anywhere near me or my gear....how would that make you feel?
If I told you..."Hey, I've had a long day and I'm trying to relax, cook, eat and organize my gear for the night...would you mind keeping your dog away from me and my gear" Would that be "inconsiderate" of me ? Would you label me a "DOG NAZI" or would there be "a greatly escalated situation"
You mention the only time your dog growls at people is when he's leashed...Pardon me but most places have leash laws and it would only make sense to have your dog leashed on the trail and if I were happily going about my day and ran into you and your growling dog I'd probably not be very comfortable with the situation or with you. I don't see any need what so ever for any hiker to have to have an encounter with a growling dog on the Appalachian Trail.
"If an aggressive dog approaches you or acts angry" Well.....somehow that image doesn't quite fit in with my image of a "wilderness experience" and is exactly why I hold the opinion that I do about dogs on the AT.
first of all, my dog was kicked by someone,with no prevocation from the dog,at Bull Gap which is a campsite 1mi north of Neel Gap in GA. this was on my GA-PA hike in 2000. my first day on the trail that year, the same guy threw a rock at me and my dog while we were eating lunch 30 feet off of the trail, also with no prevocation from the dog. no exchange of words from me or the guy before he kicked the s**t out of my dog. after that, i simply told him that if he wanted to start a fight with the dog, then it was out of my hands, and to go right ahead. in my opinion, once first blows had been delt, it was between him and the dog. if someone kicked you,would you like the opportunity to defend yourself? the guy wasn't camping there, just moving through. i was sitting on a log next to the trail enjoying some beers complementary of Little Green Turtle. the dog was next to me sitting.
last, yes, my dog has growled when on a leash. so you would have me put him on a leash so he will growl at you, rather than leave him off so he won't? now that makes a s**t load of sense doesn't it?
Skidsteer
07-09-2006, 10:28
the same guy threw a rock at me and my dog while we were eating lunch 30 feet off of the trail, also with no prevocation from the dog. no exchange of words from me or the guy before he kicked the s**t out of my dog.
It was probably Ridge. :D
Intersting topic.
3 observations -
1. Like Ron White says: "I'm a dog lover . . . not your dog, I could care less about your dog - I love my dog." People like there dogs allot better than others dogs.
2. Some dogs are great at sensing fear- and acting on it (the whole dominance thing) that could expain some confrontations - hiker who is deathly scared of dogs sees dogs exudes fear - dog responds - hiker responds . . .etc etc.
3. My take on this - and it seems like most agree on a basic level here - is that well behaved dogs kept on leashes, not in the shelters, waste is buried or hiked out are no problem. Unfortunately there are allot of "others" out there. It seems this is the NPS's attitude: From the GSMNP web site: "Pets are allowed in campgrounds, picnic areas, parking areas, and along roads, but must be kept on a leash at all times. The leash must not exceed 6 feet in length. Pets are only allowed on two short walking paths--the Gatlinburg Trail and the Oconaluftee River Trail. Pets are not allowed on any other park trails. Pets should not be left unattended in vehicles or RVs.
The Southern Highlands region offers an amazing variety of federal public lands for recreation and enjoyment. Some public lands outside the Smokies offer a wider range of recreational opportunities than are available here, including hiking with you pet. For maps and information about these national forests and recreation areas please call the following numbers:"
Too bad a few (or I guess many) are ruining it for all.
I'm a dog lover for sure (not just mine) but the simple premise of law applies here: Your rights end where they interfere with someone elses rights.
And yes, some parks do ban them because of diseases, etc - Isle Royale for instance - which has a very sensative wolf population - bans all pets no exception.
Not trying to piss anyone off - it just seems that there is a middle ground in theory - but probably not in practice (unfortunatly>)
This has been pretty mellow for a dog thread.:)
I strongly support those who don't believe dogs belong on the trail to leave theirs at home.:p More so, I support dogs who leave thier owners at home on WB!:D After all, humans have the biggest negative enviromental impact on the trail and around the world!! How many "people" bury or pack their poop and pack out their paper? A few perhaps- not many. And talk about a species that spread disease?!:eek:
I'd be happy if I saw more people worry about the impact they have, instead of someones dog. Why argue about 1% of the problem and ignore the real one?
SGT Rock
07-09-2006, 13:22
Yes, it would be nice to keep it mellow too. Hopefully no one talks about shooting someone's dog and no dog owner resorts to calling folks "dog haters" and threatens to let their dog loose on those that are only protecting themselves after a few run in's with bad dogs and are only be prudent to take a defensive stance when they see a dog.
But to the 1% problem, I disagree. While there are bad hikers out there, most seem to be doing the right thing. On the other hand, my experince with dog hikers is the exact oposite. most of them are screwed up and and only a few have even the slightest clue what they are doing. The problem is almost every dog hiker thinks they are one of the good ones.
One person's defensive stance can be easily mistaken by another person or dog as an agressive stance. It's no wonder you guys get bad responses from dogs and dog owners
Dog hikers no-care attitude is similar to the mountain bikers.
Mountain bikers argue: "we do no trail damage instead we are really doing the trail a service by cleaning off debri so everyone can pass".
Dog hikers attitude: "As long as I have the right, screw you and your shelter, my dog goes hiking. They enjoy to hike too. I'll keep him on a leash if it suits me."
The majority of the dog hikers on the trails are day-hikers, weekender's or section hikers. All they are really doing is just changing the scenery and walking their dog on a well loved trail, letting the dog piss and crap everywhere, instead of letting their dog crap in their neighbors yard back home.
generoll
07-09-2006, 17:09
hikers don't piss and crap everywhere? get real. the reason privies are being built at considerable expense and effort is because all too many hikers have taken the attitude that since they're only passing this way once, one more pile of **** won't matter. most dogs have sense enough not to **** where they eat. a pity people have lost that instinct.
Ramble~On
07-09-2006, 19:54
first of all, my dog was kicked by someone,with no prevocation from the dog,at Bull Gap which is a campsite 1mi north of Neel Gap in GA. this was on my GA-PA hike in 2000. my first day on the trail that year, the same guy threw a rock at me and my dog while we were eating lunch 30 feet off of the trail, also with no prevocation from the dog. no exchange of words from me or the guy before he kicked the s**t out of my dog. after that, i simply told him that if he wanted to start a fight with the dog, then it was out of my hands, and to go right ahead. in my opinion, once first blows had been delt, it was between him and the dog. if someone kicked you,would you like the opportunity to defend yourself? the guy wasn't camping there, just moving through. i was sitting on a log next to the trail enjoying some beers complementary of Little Green Turtle. the dog was next to me sitting.
last, yes, my dog has growled when on a leash. so you would have me put him on a leash so he will growl at you, rather than leave him off so he won't? now that makes a s**t load of sense doesn't it?
Actually it makes no sense to me why I should have a dog growling at me.
If you are unable to control your dog and that includes having it growl at hikers than you are exactly the kind of dog owner that I am speaking about in almost all of my dog related posts... Do you understand this?
If you the dog owner aren't able to keep your dog from growling at me the hiker than you the dog owner are not in control of your dog...leashed or otherwise and I would react to that situation in a much more positive way if I saw you the dog owner holding that growling dog by a leash than if it were not leashed. I am sure that in that situation I would not be very comfortable, after all in that scenario I am simply walking down a trail and there you and your dog are...and your dog is growling at me...Huh:-? I can't imagine why anybody in their right mind wouldn't enjoy such an experience whilst seeking fellowship with the wilderness. Of course in that same scenario I could become affraid of your dog and run.....if your dog weren't on a leash and it ran after me what then would the outcome be....
Why should any of these scenarios have happened in the first place...if your dog growls at people it doesn't sound to me like it's a "friendly dog"
If you are unable to control your dog why do you have it with you on the trail. If any hiker is simply minding their own business and your dog growls at them how do you think that makes that hiker feel ?
It's a consideration issue that perhaps you have not considered.
In my opinion a hiking trail is there for hiking....if it is closed to horses I don't expect to run into horses....ATV's etc....but the AT has no laws or rules regarding dogs as a whole and so....this debate will linger.
While I would expect to encounter other hikers and animals that live in the woods on the trail I somehow find dogs to be foreign.
I have no beef with you and I hold no hard feelings towards you.
I have opinions about dogs on the trail and you are entitled to have your dog with you on most of the AT just as I should be entitled to walk the AT without negative dog encounters and I won't list what I consider to be negative however if you would like me to....simply ask. I have actual encounters that make for good example.
As for the man who simply came up for no reason at all and kicked your dog... I am very sorry to hear about that..
Leashed: Leash laws apply. If you are hiking the Appalachian Trail or any other trail it is up to you the dog owner to research and abide by leash laws. Do you do this ?
If I were to ask you what the law is in any certain county that the AT passes through could you tell me whether or not you had to, by law keep your dog leashed while in that county ? Would you abide by the law ?
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/2006/March06/Mixedbreed0306.pdf
Retiree attacked by unleashed dog, owner flees, leaves man covered in blood. A 2 page news article telling of how the unprovoked dog attacked the old man and how the coward owner fled the seen, offering no help. The words "he's never acted like that before" rings a bell.
"These dogs have never done anything like this before, I swear,"
Words spoken after a woman was attacked on a trail by unleashed dogs.
http://www.denverpost.com/perspective/ci_3915406
I hope Bell recovers enough so Mr. Percival can continue his patrols of the AT with his companion. Nice of him to point out that most dog owners he runs into obey the regulations for his area. He patrols the AT so imagine he knows. I hope they figure out who owns the attacking dog. Charges should be filed and the dog probably should be separated from the negligent owner, if not put down.
URGENT: PUBLIC HELP NEEDED IN TWO DOG BITE INCIDENTS
http://www.co.lane.or.us/News/News_2003/Release_10353.htm
I agree you have a much higher probability of being attacked by someones unleashed dog than a bear, or any animal.
I hope Bell recovers enough so Mr. Percival can continue his patrols of the AT with his companion. Nice of him to point out that most dog owners he runs into obey the regulations for his area. He patrols the AT so imagine he knows. I hope they figure out who owns the attacking dog. Charges should be filed and the dog probably should be separated from the negligent owner, if not put down.
I bet his attitude about unleashed dogs has changed since the attack. I know mine did, my attitude went from "it really doesn't matter to me if a dog is leashed or not, I've always had dogs, I'm big, I gotta stick, just not worried about it." to the way I currently feel " carry a pistol and use it to 1) kill the dog if I'm being attack 2) hold the owner at bay until the cops can get come and make an arrest 3) shoot the owner in the leg if he attempts to flee with or without the attack dog. I was left with a severe tear/bite on my hand that required stitches, I have a bad scar to remind me. A destroyed and expensive shell that I was wearing. The owner and his girlfriend left as fast as they could with the attack dog, still off a leash. So, hell yea, if someone wants to bother with taking a gun for protection, I'm all for it. Shoot'em once for me!
"Rescue Dogs Identified in Attack"
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1624699/posts
Expensive Rescue Dogs will be put down!
Well, So much for voice control !
"Blind man attacked by pit bulls "
http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nagdu/2004-June/005043.html
The web is full of these kind of attacks. I read that you are 70 times more likely to be attacked by a dog than a bear. I can't believe its on 70 times.
Expensive Rescue Dogs will be put down!
Well, So much for voice control ! I believe you are confusing rescue dogs with search and rescue dogs or service dogs. These grehounds were most likely "rescued" by an organization that places them in homes where they are wanted. They are /were probably retired racetrack dogs. I don't think the people who adopt them pay money for them, they just offer a home. As for voice control, I didn't see that mentioned in the article. I understand your desire to pass these stories on, I'm just wondering if you are misunderstanding some of the details. Irresposible owners and unpredictable dogs are indeed a dangerous combination. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, and I'm sure it was an event you would like to forget.
What I'm not going to do is let up on these I-don't-give-a-damn dog hikers and let them know how I feel. Question is, how many people have to be attacked by someones unleashed dog, until something is done. How many times does a hiker who's been attack have to hear the dog owners statement "this dog has never done anything like this before, I swear" I'm thinking your only choice is to carry a weapon to defend yourself, or loved ones while in the woods. Maybe, in the future the headlines will be: "Dog owner shot while trying to flee scene after his unleashed dog attacked an armed hiker" This sounds better than "a senior citizen is attacked and left to die, while dog and owner flee scene"!!!
Ridge, I could search for just about any extremist point of view and find link after link to support my arguement no matter what the topic was. However in the name of equal time, lets stick with good dogs vs bad dogs...
Stray dog saves life of abandoned baby
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7792445/?GT1=6542
Dog saves woman from alligator
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/14/earlyshow/main688146.shtml
Dog saves man from bear
http://www.susannassoapbox.com/osdog.html
Dog with broken leg and broken back saves owners life by getting help
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=62126&nid=5
I didn't see your article for "unleashed dog saves strange hiker" and you left out several articles where unleashed dog runs back to owner with bear chasing it. Or, unleashed dog gets into poison ivy and transfers it to owner from dogs fur. Dogs bite hikers all the time. Hikers don't realize their biggest threat on the trail is from unleashed dogs. Road walks into town have dangers from yard dogs. A hiker should carry a gun to protect themselves from dogs, or to hold the owner after an attack, I know I do.
Well, Ridge, you are leaving out all of the articles about dogs doing good things and only telling one side of the story, so I'm just filling in the gaps, shall we continue to post links?
Hikers don't realize their biggest threat on the trail is from unleashed dogs.
Strangely, I felt the biggest threat on the trail was turning an ankle or slipping due to inattention or fatigue after 16 miles or so, I managed to walk most of the trail and did not encounter one nasty dog. I'm not saying they do not exist, but you are using the data set you gathered to foster a degree of paranoia that is completely unwarrented. So you got bit, I had to fight my way out of a telephone booth once because a homeless person was trying to mug me and thought I would be easy since I was sort of trapped, does that mean all homeless people are going to mug me? Getting bit does not mean all dogs are going to bite you...
Road walks into town have dangers from yard dogs. A hiker should carry a gun to protect themselves from dogs, or to hold the owner after an attack, I know I do.
If you want to carry a gun to protect yourself, more power to you, it is your right under the second ammendment and believe me, I am the absolute last person to say anything bad about responsible, law abiding, gun owners. As to the second part, if you plan to use a gun in anything other than last ditch self defense, you have no business carrying one. "Holding the owner after an attack" is not self defense, the threat at that point has passed.
Well, Ridge, you are leaving out all of the articles about dogs doing good things and only telling one side of the story.......
I'm waiting to here all the good things dogs bring to the trail. I've not read any articles about dogs doing anything good on any trail for the dog-less hikers and the wildlife. All I can find are articles about attacks, how they spread disease to wildlife, chase wildlife, bark at any given time, dirty water sources, steal and beg for food, dirty up sleeping bags, attract Lyme disease carrying ticks and then kick them off in shelters, crap and piss everywhere. Where's all the good stuff that a dog-less hiker is missing out on? Seems the GSMNP and Baxter SP is missing out on all the good stuff too. Start listing all the good things they bring to dog-less hikers and the wildlife on the trail, I want to hear it. I think there is only one side of a story to tell.
Ramble~On
07-10-2006, 04:18
I can't provide a link but there was a film clip from a pitbull attack on an infant July 9 on CNN's website.
The dog belonged to the parents and had "never done anything like that before"
That story and this post are not related to hiking but are related to the unpredictable nature of animals....any animal...
I am not anti-dog...I am anti inconsiderate dog owner...
I wonder how the infant that was mauled on her face by the family pet will feel about dogs as she grows up. I wonder what internal scars will be left that plastic surgeons can't fix.
Ramble~On
07-10-2006, 04:23
Oh, almost forgot..
I second the notion that the biggest threat on the trail, any trail is from dogs.
In this instance I define threat as "cause of bodily harm or monetary loss"
A hiker should carry a gun to protect themselves from dogs, or to hold the owner after an attack, I know I do.
Do you have a carry permit or do you just have a firearms card. If you don't have a cary permint that gun better be in a locked case unloaded with the amo stored sperately, and then if you're being attacked you won't have time to get to the box, open it, find the amo, load the gun, take aim and fire, wait the safety is still on crap your done.
When I took the Small arm training for the Navy we had an exercise, we stood next to a guy with a plastic knife. On the word go from the instructor he ran away from us and we drew our side arm from the houlster then took aim and simulated fireing one shot(plastic training bullets that weigh the same but are one solid peice of plastic loaded in to a peice of brass. Then the person from where they were turned around and we repeated the exercise with them now comming toward you. everyone knew they couldn't get hurt but still no one mannaged to successfully stop the person before getting to them. I sincerly hope you leave the gun next time you go hiking. If you were among us responsible gun ownersand not a wanna be cowboy you would realize that all you are really doing is making things worse for those of us who are responsible. Carry a stun gun or pepper spray, those protect more people than every gun carried since they were first made.
As for dogs I think we need to actully come up with a set of standard rules FOR THE ENTIRE TRAIL as to leash, edicate and other topics. And ALL hikers do what hunters have to do take a 16 hour course on hiking eticate including hiking with a dog. You pass it you get a card. you must produce that card upon request. If you are found in violation of the rules then you have no excuse you have been taught them now you are just negligent and should be fined jailed or cained I don't care but just remember you are also going to be held to those standards.
So the logic is simply: "Because there are some irresponsible dog owners, all dogs should be banned from the trail." This zero tolerance bull**** is why we have high school cheerleaders getting suspended from school for carrying midol and why a boy scout can't carry his scout pocket knife to school.
I'm not pro-dog on the trail FYI, I have no desire to hike with a dog, but I support the right of responsible, law abiding people to not have to suffer under excessive regulation brought about by stupid irresponsible people. Punish the guilty and leave the innocent alone.
When you "hold someone" with your gun because their dog nipped you, do you plan to shoot them if they walk away?
Rain Man
07-10-2006, 10:35
... everyone knew they couldn't get hurt but still no one mannaged to successfully stop the person before getting to them. I sincerly hope you leave the gun next time you go hiking. If you were among us responsible gun ownersand not a wanna be cowboy you would realize that all you are really doing is making things worse for those of us who are responsible.
... As for dogs I think we need to actully come up with a set of standard rules FOR THE ENTIRE TRAIL as to leash, edicate and other topics. And ALL hikers do what hunters have to do take a 16 hour course on hiking eticate including hiking with a dog. You pass it you get a card. you must produce that card upon request. ...
Well, we all know that one already has to be at least a bit cowardly to carry a gun on the AT, one of the safest places there is. They might as well carry a gun the next time they visit a new church. After all, more people have been shot dead in the US during church services than on the AT. So, why give permits to folks who have to be a bit delusional in order to want to carry a gun? They are both cowardly and delusional (and as you say, "wannabee cowboys"),-- and we want them to carry deadly weapons? What's wrong with that picture?!
Also, I love the idea of dog owners having to take a course and carry a card at all times, but I think the card should be displayed prominently. No one should have to go to the trouble and "aggression" of stopping the dog owner and demanding to see a permit. It should be right around their neck or pinned to their pack (if their pack is on their back).
Good idea you have!
Rain:sunMan
.
Rainman I was saying that every hiker should have to take the course regardless of if they hike with a dog or not. THe problem is not justr hikers with dog but ignorent people.
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 11:24
One person's defensive stance can be easily mistaken by another person or dog as an aggressive stance. It's no wonder you guys get bad responses from dogs and dog owners
Actually chief, I rarely ever do this myself. Only when I see a dog that is not leashed have I taken to doing this - and that is because I have been bitten by unleashed dogs. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. So why should I not expect poor behavior from unleashed dogs?
Of course your reply is another great example of an innocent person getting blamed for the dog attacking them. Even thought you didn't know any of my past history or situations you will assume that the dogs are innocent and I am provoking them. I suppose you think I go around hoping to get attacked on hiking trips so I can "defend myself". But hey, last time I got a near attack it was a dog on a leash that I was doing my best to ignore and I didn't take a defensive stance against. And the time before that, when it was three dogs off leash circling my 7 year old son with hackles raised and fangs bared - and all he was doing was walking up the trail - I was the one told to chill out by the dog owner as I moved in to my sons side with a machete in my hand. BTW I was doing trail maintenance, it isn't something I normally carry.
Thanks for trying to make me feel like the one that induces the attacks. I think that is an example of why people like me are tired of dogs on the trail. Seems we can never win with people that assume we are dog haters.
Thanks for pissing me off today.
bearbait2k4
07-10-2006, 12:24
I'm waiting to here all the good things dogs bring to the trail. I've not read any articles about dogs doing anything good on any trail for the dog-less hikers and the wildlife. All I can find are articles about attacks, how they spread disease to wildlife, chase wildlife, bark at any given time, dirty water sources, steal and beg for food, dirty up sleeping bags, attract Lyme disease carrying ticks and then kick them off in shelters, crap and piss everywhere. Where's all the good stuff that a dog-less hiker is missing out on? Seems the GSMNP and Baxter SP is missing out on all the good stuff too. Start listing all the good things they bring to dog-less hikers and the wildlife on the trail, I want to hear it. I think there is only one side of a story to tell.
I would like to hear all the good things that PEOPLE bring to the trial, to be quite honest with you.
I do know, however, that animal occurrences were rare the times I've hiked around people with dogs, or have camped in an area with dogs. I have known people to have been alerted, by their dogs, to snakes on the trail, or even bears and other dangerous wildlife close to the trail. I also know women who simply feel safer when hiking with a dog, because of the added protection they may receive if left in a vulnerable situation (hitch-hiking, and generally hiking alone). Those aspects, in my opinion, are good things that dogs bring to the trail.
I do think that dogs should be leashed when on the trail, just for safety's sake, but I also can recognize that there are people out on the trail who enjoy their dog's companionship, know how to keep their dog on a leash, and out of the way of other hikers. I think the main course of action should be to speak to dog owners when someone sees them being irresponsible. Some people just won't listen, and that's unfortunate. Those people who don't listen may end up being responsible for tighter rules and regulations for dogs in the wilderness, and that's also unfortunate.
That goes for everything, though. We typically all pay the price for those extremists that push it too far, one way or another.
I can't believe this thread and the others are STILL going! Everything that can be said about dogs on the trail has been said already. If both sides of the argument have read all of the threads on the subject of dogs and still feel like they need to speak up, all we are going to get is a bunch of PO'd people arguing and not giving up.
I have to admit that I have only been on this site for a month or so and I read the arguments for/against and said my piece. I also conceded some points because I don't think of myself as an extremist one way or the other (there are good reasons both for and against).
Face facts - some people have had bad experiences and good experiences and that sets their mind to one way or the other. Unfortunately, it's never going to be one way or the other since we don't live in a black and white world. There are going to be good and bad dog owners, good and bad dogs and good and bad reactions no matter what type of encounter you have. So, let's just move on and all agree to disagree.
In the words of Rodney King - "Can't we all just get along?"
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 12:42
I would like to hear all the good things that PEOPLE bring to the trial, to be quite honest with you.
Good thought. I like that. I think it is one reason this board exists.
I do know, however, that animal occurrences were rare the times I've hiked around people with dogs, or have camped in an area with dogs. I have known people to have been alerted, by their dogs, to snakes on the trail, or even bears and other dangerous wildlife close to the trail. I also know women who simply feel safer when hiking with a dog, because of the added protection they may receive if left in a vulnerable situation (hitch-hiking, and generally hiking alone). Those aspects, in my opinion, are good things that dogs bring to the trail.
Yes, my animal occurrences are less around dogs too - less deer, less birds, less frogs, less lizards, less playfully squirrels. One good reason to not have dogs around because of the secondary prededation effects - and that has been pr oven in a few studies as also reducing birth rates in some animals they come into contact with - and to those that say that humans have more impact, well the one I read said that just wasn't so.
But to the rest of what you said: So a dog is like a gun? It makes one feel safer? Protection from the unspecified unknown. Maybe that interferes with the hiker that feels the need from ever getting past the irrational fear. Dangerous wildlife? I've hiked lots of miles without a dog, and so have countless other people and we are all still alive. Maybe you don't need a dog to alert you "dangerous wildlife"? And back when I hiked with a dog (yes, I am not a dog hater) it was harder to hitch. All good reasons to not have a dog.
I do think that dogs should be leashed when on the trail, just for safety's sake, but I also can recognize that there are people out on the trail who enjoy their dog's companionship, know how to keep their dog on a leash, and out of the way of other hikers. I think the main course of action should be to speak to dog owners when someone sees them being irresponsible. Some people just won't listen, and that's unfortunate. Those people who don't listen may end up being responsible for tighter rules and regulations for dogs in the wilderness, and that's also unfortunate.
Actually I have spoken to dog owners, here and on the trail. They all say it is someone else's dog or it is the other non-dog hikers that are the problem. Maybe the main course of action is for people to realize when folks like me are saying this on the web, they should stop thinking it is someone else's dog and accept that it may just be them. After all, I am a dog owner, I have hiked with a dog, I know how dogs can react, have been attacked by dogs, and have made a decision to be responsible and stop taking my dog hiking.
That goes for everything, though. We typically all pay the price for those extremists that push it too far, one way or another.
Yes, except that the "dog haters" have no push right now. There are only a few places at this time that don't allow dogs. And based on my experience the "dog lovers" can't even accept these rules and do what they can to break them. I only see one extreme side here. The other "side" is only the voice in the wilderness trying to warn the other that they are screwing it up.
So the logic is simply: "Because there are some irresponsible dog owners, all dogs should be banned from the trail." ......
You got it..
If I saw 1 unleashed dog on the the trail and 10 that where leashed there wouldn't be a problem, instead its 10 unleashed and 1 leashed, and I'm being generous with that ratio.
I would like to hear all the good things that PEOPLE bring to the trial, to be quite honest with you.
.....................
You are right, I'll tell you what, the next trail that is built for dogs to travel, I promise not to step foot on it unless I'm leashed. And, I'll stay at motels when going thru areas humans are not allowed. OK
max patch
07-10-2006, 13:08
"Dog hater" is a misleading and inaccurate term for those of us who understand why dogs should not be on the trail.
"Dog hater" is a misleading and inaccurate term for those of us who understand why dogs should not be on the trail.
You're right. The dogs are not to blame. The thread should have been titled "Dog-Hiker Hater......" this would have been closer to the truth. At least for me it would have.
Actually chief, I rarely ever do this myself. Only when I see a dog that is not leashed have I taken to doing this - and that is because I have been bitten by unleashed dogs. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. So why should I not expect poor behavior from unleashed dogs?
Of course your reply is another great example of an innocent person getting blamed for the dog attacking them. Even thought you didn't know any of my past history or situations you will assume that the dogs are innocent and I am provoking them. I suppose you think I go around hoping to get attacked on hiking trips so I can "defend myself". But hey, last time I got a near attack it was a dog on a leash that I was doing my best to ignore and I didn't take a defensive stance against. And the time before that, when it was three dogs off leash circling my 7 year old son with hackles raised and fangs bared - and all he was doing was walking up the trail - I was the one told to chill out by the dog owner as I moved in to my sons side with a machete in my hand. BTW I was doing trail maintenance, it isn't something I normally carry.
Thanks for trying to make me feel like the one that induces the attacks. I think that is an example of why people like me are tired of dogs on the trail. Seems we can never win with people that assume we are dog haters.
Thanks for pissing me off today.
Go ahead, be pissed off if you like, though you might want to avoid making a lot of assumptions about my simple statement. Really, it wasn't about you personally. It was about simple animal behavior, that you as well as I know is true about humans and dogs alike.
Show me the epidemic of attacks on hikers by dogs owned by hikers and I'll begin to give some creedence to your arguement, I can google up a few dozen more "good dog" stories that have no relevence to the trail to match your "dog attacks man in parking lot" stories if you would like. A dog biting someone on the sidewalk in town has no bearing to dogs on the trail, it is a matter for local law enforcement or civil court, not global change to policies.
I argue frequently on alot of politically oriented forums and the tactics you use are identical to the ones used by a small band of neo-nazi nutcases on one of them to create paranoia about non-whites. They post about how the races should be seperated and then dredge up a bunch of links about violent crimes commited by (insert current target group here), then defend themselves by claiming "personal experience" or "telling the truth". When confronted with numbers or a sound argument they just go dredge up more links, the Internet is a wonderful thing, it can support any arguement no matter how ridiculous it is.
You can argue the nuisence factor and ask or advise people not to take dogs and I'll go along. You can say it is bad for the dog, that it is limiting to hiker, it reduces the chances of completing and I'll agree, I've even posted on this forum advising people against taking dogs, but this is allegedly a free country and more laws and regulation is only the answer to a very small number of problems.
Strays are certainly a problem, loose, uncontrolled dogs are a problem, but a hiker with a trained, leashed dog, camping away from others, controlling the dog when others are nearby is a completely different story.
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 13:57
Go ahead, be pissed off if you like, though you might want to avoid making a lot of assumptions about my simple statement. Really, it wasn't about you personally. It was about simple animal behavior, that you as well as I know is true about humans and dogs alike.
Yes they both have their reactions. But while people can do things that are based on past experience and either hold their actions or prepare for others, dogs don't communicate like we do - and even people that are sure they know their dog cannot predict their dog's reaction 100%. And like I said, I get tired of people assuming the attacked humans is to blame in dog encounters. I guess this kid is to blame - maybe she was sucking her pacifier in an offensive manner:
http://www.kcoy.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=B320B50C-738E-4553-BA8F-BE8632731572
And more information on the video about this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/07/09/nguyen.baby.mauled.by.dog.affl
The truth is we wouldn't have to be defensive, except that people put us in that position. And then they mistake it as offensive, well that means the person doing it is oblivious to the reason the hiker is getting defensive in the first place - another point in the support of why I hate seeing dogs on the trail. Just like the situation with me and my son I listed before. I guess I am the exception to the rule given your recent post. I think not.
And yes, it pisses me off when people want to blame folks for getting attacked - you may as well blame a rape victim for dressing ****ty and a robbery victim for not being careful enough. And it pisses me off when people excuse poor behavior as being someone else's fault. So I will be pissed off by your comments when you say things like this - especially when you quote me and then say "you guys" right after it - you can back pedal now, but that implies me by anyones definition. I guess your open ended remark was directed at everyone else but me?
You can choose to see that people are defending themselves rightly or you can choose to believe they are acting offensively out of hate for dogs. The first one is the one that makes sense unless you really believe there are hundreds of hikers that go hiking just for the chance to hit a dog :-?
I guess I am just a dog hater if I get pissed by people excusing the pooches actions. :rolleyes:
Again, show me the good a dog on a hiking trail brings to the non-dog hiking community and to the wildlife. If, and I say If, you can show one I can show you a hundred to that one or more. I just read where a girl was attacked by a tied up dog behind a shelter when she awoke the dog attempting to go to the privy. Of course, the girl was blamed for the attack since it was she who startled the dog. Read all the trail journals about the problems they have with other hikers dogs. And, if you're in the Mt Rogers area in VA and wish to see the wild ponies, make sure you're not following a hiker with his dog.
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 14:08
Show me the epidemic of attacks on hikers by dogs owned by hikers and I'll begin to give some creedence to your arguement, I can google up a few dozen more "good dog" stories that have no relevence to the trail to match your "dog attacks man in parking lot" stories if you would like. A dog biting someone on the sidewalk in town has no bearing to dogs on the trail, it is a matter for local law enforcement or civil court, not global change to policies.
How does it have no bearing? While an attack in a parking lot is not a trail, it is still an attack. And while an attack in an urban environment where the police and witnesses are available, on the trail we still have miles to make before we get to such things. Who wants to end their hike over a dog bite just to report it?
I argue frequently on alot of politically oriented forums and the tactics you use are identical to the ones used by a small band of neo-nazi nutcases on one of them to create paranoia about non-whites. They post about how the races should be seperated and then dredge up a bunch of links about violent crimes commited by (insert current target group here), then defend themselves by claiming "personal experience" or "telling the truth". When confronted with numbers or a sound argument they just go dredge up more links, the Internet is a wonderful thing, it can support any arguement no matter how ridiculous it is.
Well this isn't that sort of forum. And this isn't that sort of debate. I applaud you for defending against the racists of the world, but we are not dog haters. I think many of us have said we are dog lovers as a matter of fact. So leave your predilection for classifying us as nutcases.
You can argue the nuisence factor and ask or advise people not to take dogs and I'll go along. You can say it is bad for the dog, that it is limiting to hiker, it reduces the chances of completing and I'll agree, I've even posted on this forum advising people against taking dogs, but this is allegedly a free country and more laws and regulation is only the answer to a very small number of problems.
And we do advise them not to. And as soon as we give them reasons not to, we get labeled "dog haters". And we haven't changed any laws or are we about to get any changed. But yet we are always the ones told we will not bend or compromise. There is nothing for us to compromise. Dogs can go most anywhere, and even in the places that they are not supposed to go, they still end up there. Who needs to compromise and follow the rules?
Strays are certainly a problem, loose, uncontrolled dogs are a problem, but a hiker with a trained, leashed dog, camping away from others, controlling the dog when others are nearby is a completely different story.
So what qualifies as a trained dog? My definition or yours, or the professional dog handlers of the US or what? There is no consensus. And people that say theirs is trained seem to be proved wrong. And as for proof about the lack of leashes it is out there. I have posted the studies before that showed in one area where it was observed, 90% of dogs were seen unleashed in an area requiring leashes. The stray dogs are not the issue anyway, it is the hiker with the dog that says they always follow the rules but don't. It is the hiker that will not listen to the person telling them when they are screwing up. It is the hiker that makes excuses for poor behavior, and it is the hiker that assumes we are dog haters just because we are tired of seeing it on the trail and take the position we will say so.
sherrill
07-10-2006, 14:33
What I hate are dogs that snore, won't make room in the shelter, carry guns, and blue/yellow blaze. The nerve.
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 14:37
That is funny. Just what this thread need is some lightning up. Thanks for putting it into perspective Sherrill. Now wait for someone to ruin it.
Happy trails sherrill!
SGT Rock
07-10-2006, 14:40
And with that said. I need to go level my Karma and be peaceful
I am no longer pissed Chief. I offer my handshake. Too bad we can't slap each other on the back and buy a beer. Life is too short to get mad.
I gotta go get some sleep WhiteBlazers and get ready for a patrol in the morning. Hope to see you all later, and we should all be in a better mood :D
Don't you just hate hearing a gun-toting hiker say " I don't know why it went off, its never done that before, I swear, and especially six times in a row". Coward ass dog-hikers who flee down the trail after their perfect mutt just attacked me will not happen again!!!! Promise.
If a bear or big cat had attacked me, I still wouldn't carry a gun. Its a shame one must protect himself from an attack by a domesticated dog while trying to enjoy the outdoors.
Ridge, you're a phony. You're all rant & no hike. Give it a rest.
How does it have no bearing? While an attack in a parking lot is not a trail, it is still an attack. And while an attack in an urban environment where the police and witnesses are available, on the trail we still have miles to make before we get to such things. Who wants to end their hike over a dog bite just to report it?
Because legislation or rule changes should be reactions to specific problems, not general ones. An attack in a parking lot in downtown anywhere, when none of the involved parties have ever been near a hiking trail in their lives has nothing at all to do with the AT. Dogs can bite, we all know that, is Ridge advocating a ban on dogs in parking lots as well? If not, why post links regarding such attacks?
Well this isn't that sort of forum. And this isn't that sort of debate. I applaud you for defending against the racists of the world, but we are not dog haters. I think many of us have said we are dog lovers as a matter of fact. So leave your predilection for classifying us as nutcases.
I do not hike with a dog, I have no intention of ever doing so, I do not even particularly support dogs on the trail. I just do not think it should be matter that should be regulated and I find Ridge's "bash, kick or shoot first, ask questions later" stance on the matter to be something I have a problem with. Cruelty to animals and children are trigger issues with me and after months of hearing Ridge talk about assaulting any dog that comes near him, whether aggressive or not, I finally got tired enough of it to speak up.
I have never claimed you personally hate dogs or called you personally a nutcase. Unfortunately you lumped yourself in with the target of my post, it was certainly not my intention to give you the impression I thought of you that way. There is a difference between making relevent arguements and standing firm on a point, which you do, and unleashing a continuous barrage of links and threats of action if a dog looks at you wrong (which I've never seen you do). My apologies if you think I was attacking you.
And we do advise them not to. And as soon as we give them reasons not to, we get labeled "dog haters". And we haven't changed any laws or are we about to get any changed. But yet we are always the ones told we will not bend or compromise. There is nothing for us to compromise. Dogs can go most anywhere, and even in the places that they are not supposed to go, they still end up there. Who needs to compromise and follow the rules?
I agree with you here, advising someone to not take a dog on the trail and informing them on the pitfalls of doing so, including the unpredictable nature of any animal does not make you a dog hater.
Where we disagree is the idea that someone who does all of those things we talk about, following rules, camping away from shelters, leashing their dog, moving the dog off trail to allow others to pass, has a reasonable amount of control of the animal (animal downs on command and will stay down until told otherwise) and is willing to enforce control over the animal by restraining it when necessary should be banned from hiking with a dog because some people do not do those things.
have posted the studies before that showed in one area where it was observed, 90% of dogs were seen unleashed in an area requiring leashes. The stray dogs are not the issue anyway, it is the hiker with the dog that says they always follow the rules but don't. It is the hiker that will not listen to the person telling them when they are screwing up. It is the hiker that makes excuses for poor behavior, and it is the hiker that assumes we are dog haters just because we are tired of seeing it on the trail and take the position we will say so.
Those are bad owners, the dog absolutely should be leashed, the owner absolutely should follow the rules, there is no excuse for failing to accept responsibility for the actions of your animal, again we agree in part. I still do not think outright bans are a solution and I do not agree that stricter laws are needed because existing laws are not enforced.
Yes they both have their reactions. But while people can do things that are based on past experience and either hold their actions or prepare for others, dogs don't communicate like we do - and even people that are sure they know their dog cannot predict their dog's reaction 100%. And like I said, I get tired of people assuming the attacked humans is to blame in dog encounters. I guess this kid is to blame - maybe she was sucking her pacifier in an offensive manner:
http://www.kcoy.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=B320B50C-738E-4553-BA8F-BE8632731572
And more information on the video about this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/07/09/nguyen.baby.mauled.by.dog.affl
The truth is we wouldn't have to be defensive, except that people put us in that position. And then they mistake it as offensive, well that means the person doing it is oblivious to the reason the hiker is getting defensive in the first place - another point in the support of why I hate seeing dogs on the trail. Just like the situation with me and my son I listed before. I guess I am the exception to the rule given your recent post. I think not.
And yes, it pisses me off when people want to blame folks for getting attacked - you may as well blame a rape victim for dressing ****ty and a robbery victim for not being careful enough. And it pisses me off when people excuse poor behavior as being someone else's fault. So I will be pissed off by your comments when you say things like this - especially when you quote me and then say "you guys" right after it - you can back pedal now, but that implies me by anyones definition. I guess your open ended remark was directed at everyone else but me?
You can choose to see that people are defending themselves rightly or you can choose to believe they are acting offensively out of hate for dogs. The first one is the one that makes sense unless you really believe there are hundreds of hikers that go hiking just for the chance to hit a dog :-?
I guess I am just a dog hater if I get pissed by people excusing the pooches actions. :rolleyes:
Oh for gods sake!! No, I'm back peddling, nor did I single you out. On the other hand, "you guys" doesn't exclude you either or me for that matter. Oh, by the way, thanks very much for putting words in my mouth about blaming victims. Didn't say that, nor would I. It's okay though, I'm not pissed off, just a little confused as to what blaming rape victims has to do with "aggresive dogs" and "defensive hikers". Should I place a smiley here to prove my 12 year old mentality? How's that for aggresive?
Two Speed
07-10-2006, 15:05
Chief & Singe, SGT Rock just did his best to disengage from this debate and prepare for a more pressing matter. Why don't we let it rest for a little while?
Yes, I agree. What did it take for this to go back to everybody bashing? Exactly 12 minutes! Damn, this thread is getting almost as bad as the Minnesota Smith thread! It's like the damn energizer bunny - it keeps going and going and going.
And with that said. I need to go level my Karma and be peaceful
I am no longer pissed Chief. I offer my handshake. Too bad we can't slap each other on the back and buy a beer. Life is too short to get mad.
I gotta go get some sleep WhiteBlazers and get ready for a patrol in the morning. Hope to see you all later, and we should all be in a better mood :D
Hey Sarge, I'd love to have a beer with you one day. You could tell me some war stories and I could tell you some sea stories. Okay, maybe more than one beer! Be safe!
chief
Ramble~On
07-10-2006, 16:40
.....And a great sudden peace fell across the thread.
Those with dogs and those without settled in...all was calm
UNTIL THE D*#M Dog started barking!
Ramble~On
07-10-2006, 16:41
........again !
Actually it makes no sense to me why I should have a dog growling at me.
If you are unable to control your dog and that includes having it growl at hikers than you are exactly the kind of dog owner that I am speaking about in almost all of my dog related posts... Do you understand this?
If you the dog owner aren't able to keep your dog from growling at me the hiker than you the dog owner are not in control of your dog...leashed or otherwise and I would react to that situation in a much more positive way if I saw you the dog owner holding that growling dog by a leash than if it were not leashed. I am sure that in that situation I would not be very comfortable, after all in that scenario I am simply walking down a trail and there you and your dog are...and your dog is growling at me...Huh:-? I can't imagine why anybody in their right mind wouldn't enjoy such an experience whilst seeking fellowship with the wilderness. Of course in that same scenario I could become affraid of your dog and run.....if your dog weren't on a leash and it ran after me what then would the outcome be....
Why should any of these scenarios have happened in the first place...if your dog growls at people it doesn't sound to me like it's a "friendly dog"
If you are unable to control your dog why do you have it with you on the trail. If any hiker is simply minding their own business and your dog growls at them how do you think that makes that hiker feel ?
It's a consideration issue that perhaps you have not considered.
In my opinion a hiking trail is there for hiking....if it is closed to horses I don't expect to run into horses....ATV's etc....but the AT has no laws or rules regarding dogs as a whole and so....this debate will linger.
While I would expect to encounter other hikers and animals that live in the woods on the trail I somehow find dogs to be foreign.
I have no beef with you and I hold no hard feelings towards you.
I have opinions about dogs on the trail and you are entitled to have your dog with you on most of the AT just as I should be entitled to walk the AT without negative dog encounters and I won't list what I consider to be negative however if you would like me to....simply ask. I have actual encounters that make for good example.
As for the man who simply came up for no reason at all and kicked your dog... I am very sorry to hear about that..
Leashed: Leash laws apply. If you are hiking the Appalachian Trail or any other trail it is up to you the dog owner to research and abide by leash laws. Do you do this ?
If I were to ask you what the law is in any certain county that the AT passes through could you tell me whether or not you had to, by law keep your dog leashed while in that county ? Would you abide by the law ?
no beef? then what's with the belittlement.
leash=protective dog
no leash=happy dog
do you understand this?
my point again, since you missed it: true of the majority of dogs, when a dog is physically attached to it's owner, it is at work. it's doing it's natural job, which is to protect and defent it's attached owner. when it's off leash then it is on leisure time, not working, having a good time. i'm not saying that all dogs should be off leash, but if they are more controllable with voice and hand signals, then it's to your benefit that they are not leashed, taking a protective stance at you mere presence.
do i take my dog into smokey mountain national park? no, because it is illegal. do i hike on the at with my dog off leash (outside national parks) yes, because it is legal.
do i stay in shelters with my dog? i wouldn't stay in a ratty, influenza infested, snore house with your dog.
if you meet me on the trail, will i be in complete control of my dog? yes. as i stated before, when i meet someone on the trail, i move off to the side, grab a hand full of doggie pack, and have him sit down. will he growl at you under these circumstances? no, and that's why we do things in this manner. if he is leashed, then he may let out a low growl as you walk by and screw up your wilderness experience.
I'd rather the dog be leashed at all times, growl or no growl. Just another BS excuse to keep a dog unleashed.
Pacific Tortuga
07-10-2006, 20:08
[quote=general]no beef? then what's with the belittlement.
no leash=happy dog
do you understand this
:-? How would or could you know this? They are wagging their tail's even when barking at times, Dog Whisperer or Goofy ?
Don't you just hate hearing a gun-toting hiker say " I don't know why it went off, its never done that before, I swear, and especially six times in a row". Coward ass dog-hikers who flee down the trail after their perfect mutt just attacked me will not happen again!!!! Promise.
If a bear or big cat had attacked me, I still wouldn't carry a gun. Its a shame one must protect himself from an attack by a domesticated dog while trying to enjoy the outdoors.
Again I ask Ridge do you have a carry permit?
If you're gonna let the dog(s) run loose you better hope there's not a retired school teacher with a gun on the trail.
Pine Canyon Tragedy Hiker with two dogs shot and killed.
In May 2004, a hiker, Harold Fish, a retired Arizona teacher is allegedly beset by two dogs. He allegedly shoots warning shots. The dogs' owner allegedly charges the hiker, allegedly yelling one or more death threats. The hiker allegedly shoots the individual. The individual dies.
NRA paying for this teachers defense. He was convicted in a lower court, but was overturned on appeal. Case thrown out, Fish still hikes, still totes gun.
"Rescue Dogs Identified in Attack"
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1624699/posts
Expensive Rescue Dogs will be put down!
Well, So much for voice control !
They were BREED RESCUE dogs! :rolleyes: Meaning.... they were rescued from a race track......not trained to rescue people! Geez.
They were BREED RESCUE dogs! :rolleyes: Meaning.... they were rescued from a race track......not trained to rescue people! Geez.
Sorry, "Expensive Rescued dogs will be put down!"
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 02:10
No problem Chief. I hate getting rilled up over nothing and this is a nothing issue for the most part.
And the patrol got canceled. See, good karma works. Everybody needs to try a dose of good karma :D
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 02:41
They were BREED RESCUE dogs! :rolleyes: Meaning.... they were rescued from a race track......not trained to rescue people! Geez.
Are you associated with those groups Frieden? If so, how do they work? I knew a couple in Louisiana that had some rescued Greyhounds and they thought the world of those dogs. They made me want to rescue one myself, but I would have to convince my wife, she prefers the yappy little dogs.
I like the medium sized breeds and figure a Greyhound would make a great exercise buddy - especially since my yard is too small for one to get their work out inside the fence.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 03:16
Because legislation or rule changes should be reactions to specific problems, not general ones. An attack in a parking lot in downtown anywhere, when none of the involved parties have ever been near a hiking trail in their lives has nothing at all to do with the AT. Dogs can bite, we all know that, is Ridge advocating a ban on dogs in parking lots as well? If not, why post links regarding such attacks?
Well I cannot speak for Ridge, but I assume when he does it, it is like the link I posted: to counter the notion that sometimes comes up that people can totally control their dogs, or to counter the notion that dogs bite for good reasons, or to counter the notion that dog bites are rare, or whatever silly statement someone makes when they JUSTIFY their dogs on the trail. That is why I post such links - when I find a story that illustrates that the assertions that people make are off the hook. Some people can make some of the most asinine assertions sometimes when then claim that they know how dogs think. Might as well say you know how kids think LOL.
I do not hike with a dog, I have no intention of ever doing so, I do not even particularly support dogs on the trail. I just do not think it should be matter that should be regulated and I find Ridge's "bash, kick or shoot first, ask questions later" stance on the matter to be something I have a problem with. Cruelty to animals and children are trigger issues with me and after months of hearing Ridge talk about assaulting any dog that comes near him, whether aggressive or not, I finally got tired enough of it to speak up.
I am a dog owner and have hiked with dogs, and even put in the time to train my girl the right way and do the best I could for her, so I am not some unexperienced anti-hiking dog person - but now I don't hike with a dog. And I agree with that sentiment about hearing people hurting animals. I hate to hurt any dog at all and don't enjoy the few time I have ever had to hurt a dog (this is separate from training punishment which should not really hurt an animal). Again, I cannot speak for Ridge's thinking, but he says he does like dogs and I believe he even said he owns dogs. But I imagine he is posting out of the same frustration many of us feel when we hear a dog owner say things about how others on the trail will just have to live with their choice to bring a dog on the trail and they are willing to accept their dog biting you (it has been said). If his words about attacking dogs bother you, then the inverse about bringing untrained dogs with nothing more than a leash to protect the public should also bother you. A leash is a poor substitute for training, but even a trained dog should stay on a leash - working police dogs and military dogs do it and they are some of the best trained animals out there. But back to the reactions of Ridge, think of this: do you think a dog lover and owner would go out of his way to hate other people's dogs and say these things? Or do you think that maybe it is the way he learned to feel based on numerous encounters with bad dogs on the trail? Think about that for a while...
I have never claimed you personally hate dogs or called you personally a nutcase. Unfortunately you lumped yourself in with the target of my post, it was certainly not my intention to give you the impression I thought of you that way. There is a difference between making relevent arguements and standing firm on a point, which you do, and unleashing a continuous barrage of links and threats of action if a dog looks at you wrong (which I've never seen you do). My apologies if you think I was attacking you.
You are right, you didn't call me a dog hater - my bad. But often people lump us opponents to dogs on the trail into the "dog hater" category when I have rarely seen a true dog hater on one of these threads. I have been called some very negative names over this issue by the supposed "dog lovers" and have just gotten used to the fact that I am going to be seen as a dog hater. If you look at some of the posters on the side of "dog haters" you will see that most are actually pet owners and dog lovers.
I agree with you here, advising someone to not take a dog on the trail and informing them on the pitfalls of doing so, including the unpredictable nature of any animal does not make you a dog hater.
Where we disagree is the idea that someone who does all of those things we talk about, following rules, camping away from shelters, leashing their dog, moving the dog off trail to allow others to pass, has a reasonable amount of control of the animal (animal downs on command and will stay down until told otherwise) and is willing to enforce control over the animal by restraining it when necessary should be banned from hiking with a dog because some people do not do those things.
Well actually I wouldn't use the term "reasonable control" because it is undefined. I define reasonable control to mean no one else is ever going to get hassled by a dog, but others think it means they can pull their dog back once it starts hassling you. And others think that you can actually deserve some of the hassle you get from a dog so it is OK to allow it. I don't know where you stand on this. But even reasonable control can leave open the possibility of unwanted aggression or attack. But let me illustrate that with an actual experience:
Last year north of Damascus I stayed near a shelter with a woman that had a dog. She kept it on a leash, stayed in a tent away from the shelter, and warned us her dog didn't do well around other hikers and we should stay away from it. I don't remember having any problems with that dog at all. Was this a responsible dog owner?
Now before you say yes, think of this: what does a once bitten law say about dogs? In this case she has brought an animal with known aggression problems on the trail, by that basic guideline she is exposing everyone around her to danger and could be held liable criminally and civilly in court. A 6' leash only works 6' in any direction. If you pass this person on an 18" wide trail you are already inside that 6' zone. If her dog was to hurt someone it could be destroyed - bad for the dog.
If the dog were a person that has been known to attack other hikers, we would most likely not want that person on the trail. Think about that.
Now before you assume I am against this dog, I am not. The owner and the dog were a great team. But this sort of team is in the very small minority in my experience. That same hike I saw two hikers with 5 dogs going down the trail - and they tried to get all those dogs under control as I passed, but it didn't work well for term - like herding cats so to speak. Those people I am sure thought they had reasonable control as well.
Those are bad owners, the dog absolutely should be leashed, the owner absolutely should follow the rules, there is no excuse for failing to accept responsibility for the actions of your animal, again we agree in part. I still do not think outright bans are a solution and I do not agree that stricter laws are needed because existing laws are not enforced.
Well I think that to anyone but us hikers, this is a non-issue. I don't think there will be enough outcry from the majority of non-hikers out there to get laws changed anyway. But I think threads like this do help the ones that are dead-set their dogs are the "reasonable controlled" to hopefully re-evaluate that assessment and do the responsible thing which is a self imposed ban. I have done it with my old trail buddy, and apparently some other dog lovers have as well. Time for more people to take their head out of the sand about what it actually means to hike with a dog and how it affects those around them.
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 03:27
no beef? then what's with the belittlement.
leash=protective dog
no leash=happy dog
do you understand this?
my point again, since you missed it: true of the majority of dogs, when a dog is physically attached to it's owner, it is at work. it's doing it's natural job, which is to protect and defent it's attached owner. when it's off leash then it is on leisure time, not working, having a good time. i'm not saying that all dogs should be off leash, but if they are more controllable with voice and hand signals, then it's to your benefit that they are not leashed, taking a protective stance at you mere presence.
do i take my dog into smokey mountain national park? no, because it is illegal. do i hike on the at with my dog off leash (outside national parks) yes, because it is legal.
do i stay in shelters with my dog? i wouldn't stay in a ratty, influenza
infested, snore house with your dog.
if you meet me on the trail, will i be in complete control of my dog? yes. as i stated before, when i meet someone on the trail, i move off to the side, grab a hand full of doggie pack, and have him sit down. will he growl at you under these circumstances? no, and that's why we do things in this manner. if he is leashed, then he may let out a low growl as you walk by and screw up your wilderness experience.
This is a good game of "ping pong"
You say you don't take your dog in the Smokies because it is illegal...Thank You and it is illegal...many people pay no attention and take their dogs in anyway.
I heard and understood your point but you didn't understand mine
Leash.....good dog owner
No leash....bad dog owner
Protective growling dog simply because it's on a leash....BS
Again my point is this....if you can not control the actions of your animal...actions such as and including growling at people as they pass by perhaps.......PERHAPS....your dog should not be on the trail until you can train him/her that people walking on a hiking trail are not something to growl at. After all it is a hiking trail we are talking about right ? People walk on hiking trails right ? Does it make sense to you now why PERHAPS a dog that growls at people would be cause for concern....
If I were walking past you and your dog growled at me and I yelled at you to control your dog what would the likely reaction of your dog be.....
As I reacted to the growling with a raised voice....what would your dog want to do ? Answer that one honestly.....and then ask yourself if I or anyone else using the AT deserves to have a dog growl at them simply because they are walking down the trail.
If you are able to train your dog to not growl by holding it's pack but you can not control the dog when it is on a lead that indicates to me that you can't control your dog and that in my opinion makes that animal unpredictable.
What happens when your dog isn't on a leash and someone comes towards you with their dog(s) on leashes and you aren't able to grab a handful of doggie pack.
Did I mention the fact that Federal, State and Local laws do in fact apply to the Appalachian Trail.... Are you familiar with the leash laws for any given section of trail and are you 100% certain that you are abiding by the law by letting your dog run free.....a dog that you admit growls at people.
Call it Belittlement if you must...but I give you my word that I will not growl at you if we should ever pass each other on a trail... I will not be on a leash either....but then again leashes are for dogs not people...and hiking trails...well.
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 03:35
Oh My Bad.....But your dog being there in the first place has already detracted from my wilderness experience....."low Growl" simply detracted from my experience.
Oh My Bad.....But your dog being there in the first place has already detracted from my wilderness experience....."low Growl" simply detracted from my experience.
and you being there has detracted from mine. why is it that you feel that your wilderness experience is more important than mine?
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 07:42
and you being there has detracted from mine. why is it that you feel that your wilderness experience is more important than mine?
It doesn't make it more important. But by taking your dog you have decided everyone else's is less important than your own. Your choice to be selfish, not their fault to ask you not to be. I see a difference, sorry you don't.
I guess it goes back to having consideration for others. You only seem to consider yourself and your dog.
Are you associated with those groups Frieden? If so, how do they work? I knew a couple in Louisiana that had some rescued Greyhounds and they thought the world of those dogs. They made me want to rescue one myself, but I would have to convince my wife, she prefers the yappy little dogs.
I like the medium sized breeds and figure a Greyhound would make a great exercise buddy - especially since my yard is too small for one to get their work out inside the fence.
Hey Rock, I didn't see Frieden answer you on this so I thought I would throw in my two cents. As you probably already know from some of my previous posts, I have been involved in animal rescue for some time. While I haven't specifically been involved with Greyhounds, I will tell you that one of their nicknames is the 60MPH Couch Potato. This is because they will have short bursts of speed but are not typically able to keep that up for long periods and they tend to be mellow house-dogs.
Anyway, it's always important for anyone considering a specific breed of dog to do some research. I can't tell you how many people have come to our shelter with a Labrador Retriever, Jack Russel or Border Collie wanting to give them up because they were too active for their household. If only they found out ahead of time what the breed was about, they might have made a better choice - like a regular old mutt. Anyway, good luck if you decide to adopt another dog. A good resource for breed information would be any breed specific rescue's website. They often have very good information on what the specific breed tendencies (and I do mean tendencies - just like people, you can't nail down that a particular breed will always be one way).
leash=protective dog
no leash=happy dog
do you understand this?
my point again, since you missed it: true of the majority of dogs, when a dog is physically attached to it's owner, it is at work. it's doing it's natural job, which is to protect and defent it's attached owner. when it's off leash then it is on leisure time, not working, having a good time. i'm not saying that all dogs should be off leash, but if they are more controllable with voice and hand signals, then it's to your benefit that they are not leashed, taking a protective stance at you mere presence.
if you meet me on the trail, will i be in complete control of my dog? yes. as i stated before, when i meet someone on the trail, i move off to the side, grab a hand full of doggie pack, and have him sit down. will he growl at you under these circumstances? no, and that's why we do things in this manner. if he is leashed, then he may let out a low growl as you walk by and screw up your wilderness experience.
Hmmm. I totally disagree with your above statements. If a dog is protective of it's family, it will be protective whether on leash or off leash. If a dog has a tendency to be agressive, it will be so whether on leash or off leash. The first measure of control in your dog should be a leash. If it is agressive, it should be muzzled and/or completely kept away from others.
When you say in control, you are still stating that your dog is not on-leash so how can you predict that it will always (that means 100% of the time) stay by your side while you grab it's pack and get off the trail? You can't. Even trainers posting on this list admit that they have at most 95% control - and that is far more than the general dog-owning public can claim and it's still not 100%.
I used to let my dogs off-leash when it seemed like noone was around but have since learned that this is a very bad idea. You never know when someone walking quietly but quickly might come around that next bend in the trail or when someone else with off-leash dogs might be around. I often have to yell very loudly for the others with off-leash dogs to come get their dogs on a leash so my dogs don't tear their dogs to shreds while I am literally hanging my dogs to keep them away from the other dogs while the other owners are saying "It's OK, my dog is friendly" and I am yelling "My dog isn't and WILL hurt your dog!"
I haven't come around totally to NO dogs on the trail but I will advocate for people to better control the dogs they do bring on the trail. Unfortunately, this won't fix all the problems since there are still lots of stray dogs out there who have essentially become feral and can be dangerous.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 11:49
Hey Rock, I didn't see Frieden answer you on this so I thought I would throw in my two cents. As you probably already know from some of my previous posts, I have been involved in animal rescue for some time. While I haven't specifically been involved with Greyhounds, I will tell you that one of their nicknames is the 60MPH Couch Potato. This is because they will have short bursts of speed but are not typically able to keep that up for long periods and they tend to be mellow house-dogs.
Sounds like my sort of dog LOL. Someone that can play for a while, but then wants to go take a good nap.
Anyway, it's always important for anyone considering a specific breed of dog to do some research. I can't tell you how many people have come to our shelter with a Labrador Retriever, Jack Russel or Border Collie wanting to give them up because they were too active for their household. If only they found out ahead of time what the breed was about, they might have made a better choice - like a regular old mutt. Anyway, good luck if you decide to adopt another dog. A good resource for breed information would be any breed specific rescue's website. They often have very good information on what the specific breed tendencies (and I do mean tendencies - just like people, you can't nail down that a particular breed will always be one way).
To tell the truth I am partial to mutts. Disposition is more important to me than having a certain breed. My in-laws dog drives me crazy with it's aggressive actions - a poodle. My favorite dog has been my Shepperd mix mutt that is 13 going on 14 now. I am afraid the old girl isn't going to be around much longer.
What is most important to me really is a dog that doesn't get excited too easy and get too tense - I have an active 8 year old and a 1 year old grandson that I need a mellow dog that gets along with them. And I want to do something good for a deserving dog. That is why I like rescue shelters.
general, I would have to disagree with you on the leash thing, too. Dogs are trained on what the leash means, or they'll make something up on their own. For example, someone asked why working dogs were seen so often on leads. If you go to a training session, you'll see that there is only one "working" dog at a time, and all the other dogs are either in their vehicles/crates, or on lead with their handler. The dog off lead is working, and all the others are waiting to be "sent out" to work. It makes training orderly, but it also helps the dog to know what is expected of him (when he is expected to work, and when he's waiting). A well trained dog shouldn't be aggressive, until you tell him to be - on or off lead. The dog's instinct would be to protect his family, but if he hears a command from you to stand down, he needs to be able to trust that you know what you're doing. Try to work with your dog in a controlled situation, where you know he would react. Never stop the training on a negative. If he isn't getting it, end on something he knows, praise him, and try again later. Use your hold word, and promise of a treat if you have to. Make sure that he's looking at you the entire time, no matter what is going on around him. It takes a lot of work, but it's worth it.
Ed has had to endure a lot at work. He had a hard kid day one day. One actually grabbed him by the head, and kissed him so much that his head was soaked. Ever since then, when we hear "look, a doggie!", we walk very fast in the other direction. People step on him all the time. It's up to me to protect him, but even I step on his ears at the register sometimes. He has become extremely tolerant, but more importantly, he watches me for what to do next. When that other dog was barking like crazy, and trying to attack us only a couple feet away, I asked Ed to lay down at my feet. He did it, but watched me for a cue that I might give at any moment. Ed needs to be confindent enough in me to know that if I needed him to defend me, I'd tell him, which means I can't screw up. That is very difficult, since I'm human. It's a lot of pressure. If I'm putting books away, and he hears a kid near, he has to hold his position, and trust me that I'll keep him safe. He loves kids, but he's scared of screaming, running kids now. When I can get the kids calmed down, Ed has learned to stand very still, and stick his nose out as far as he can, so the kids can pet him. Adults are far worse than the kids are, though. Most kids will ask, "can I pet your doggie?" I will say that they can't while he's working, and most kids respect that. The adults could care less, even though they can read the "working dog - do not pet" sign on his back. They will even read the sign, while they are petting him!
To tell the truth I am partial to mutts. Disposition is more important to me than having a certain breed. My in-laws dog drives me crazy with it's aggressive actions - a poodle. My favorite dog has been my Shepperd mix mutt that is 13 going on 14 now. I am afraid the old girl isn't going to be around much longer.
What is most important to me really is a dog that doesn't get excited too easy and get too tense - I have an active 8 year old and a 1 year old grandson that I need a mellow dog that gets along with them. And I want to do something good for a deserving dog. That is why I like rescue shelters.
You've got the right idea (and I am happy as a rescue person to hear you consider a shelter dog!). With kids in the equation, you definitely have to be very cognizant of temperament. We try and tell people who call us looking for specific breeds to look more at each dog as an individual than the actual breed since you can't generalize what a particular breeds temperament will be.
We had a case here in CT last year of a Golden Retriever that was eventually put down (took too long IMO) after it bit the child in the home a couple times. People are shocked at that because it was a Golden and they are supposed to be great family dogs. Unfortunately, there is the good the bad and the ugly in every breed group.
I would recommend a book called "Successful Dog Adoption" by Sue Sterberg (you can get it on Amazon for about $12). It gives alot of great tips for determining temperament and evaluating dogs in a shelter environment. It is geared toward the average Joe looking to find that perfect family dog. Good luck!
Lets see how all you dog hikers, who do or do not leash their dogs, react when you get bitten by a strange dog and both the dog and its owner take off. Maybe the word Rabies will come to mind and maybe you'll wonder: should I take the shots or just simply risk my life for the sake of pets being on the trail. This is one feeling I'm not going to have again, not without a confrontation.
I hope it is you that is attacked and bitten, instead of a non-dog hikers.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 12:11
I would recommend a book called "Successful Dog Adoption" by Sue Sterberg (you can get it on Amazon for about $12). It gives alot of great tips for determining temperament and evaluating dogs in a shelter environment. It is geared toward the average Joe looking to find that perfect family dog. Good luck!
Thanks for the tip about the book. I think I will look it up when I get home this month on leave.
My general strategy is to see which dog is not acting like it is on fire when a new person walks into the area. Then try holding the dog for a while to see how it acts. A good dog IMO will not pee, nip, or cringe when held by new people. Seems to work.
Are you associated with those groups Frieden? If so, how do they work? I knew a couple in Louisiana that had some rescued Greyhounds and they thought the world of those dogs. They made me want to rescue one myself, but I would have to convince my wife, she prefers the yappy little dogs.
I like the medium sized breeds and figure a Greyhound would make a great exercise buddy - especially since my yard is too small for one to get their work out inside the fence.
I'm not associated with any greyhound breed rescue, but did a bunch of research on them, and spoke with the local rescue organization here, when I was thinking of adopting one. They said to never get one if you have a cat or small dog. They are bred and trained to chase and kill small running things. They are sprinters, which is why I didn't adopt one. I was looking for a hiking dog, and greyhounds are not big on endurance (plus, I have 3 cats). They make excellent town dogs. A couple here walks around the subdivision with a pair of greyhounds. Absolutely beautiful dogs! They seem to be a lot like cats, in that they have bursts of energy, and then lay around the rest of the time. I've been told that they are very loving, and will try to be a lap dog if you let them. Greyhound breed rescue is really big in Tampa, because of the racetracks here. If you are just looking for a mellow family pet, who would love to chase a ball or Frisbee every once in a while, a greyhound would be a perfect fit.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 12:15
Dang, the small dog thing might kill it for me. My wife has a terrier mix that is what I consider a small dog.
Lets see how all you dog hikers, who do or do not leash their dogs, react when you get bitten by a strange dog and both the dog and its owner take off. Maybe the word Rabies will come to mind and maybe you'll wonder: should I take the shots or just simply risk my life for the sake of pets being on the trail. This is one feeling I'm not going to have again, not without a confrontation.
I hope it is you that is attacked and bitten, instead of a non-dog hikers.
Luckily, it isn't rabies "shots", as in plural, long needles, anymore. It's one shot, and you're done! Even you can toughen up for one shot, right Ridge? :D I'd worry about the stitches.
........It gives alot of great tips for determining temperament and evaluating dogs in a shelter environment. It is geared toward the average Joe looking to find that perfect family dog. Good luck!
BS, when you put a dog out in the woods, around wildlife, other dogs, strange people, you have no clue how a dog will react, and you sure as hell won't get that information from a book. I remember words like "I don't know why he did that, he's never done that before, sorry" Maybe, the last chapter of the books gives examples of excuses the dog hikers can use to place blame on everyone else.
Dang, the small dog thing might kill it for me. My wife has a terrier mix that is what I consider a small dog.
Yeah, you might want to stay away from herding breeds, too. A great dog for you might be a mastiff, or something along those lines. There are some great breeds used for guarding livestock, instead of chasing them, which may also be a good fit. I don't like the little yappy dogs, either. My neighbor raises yorkies, and I'll have to admit, antifreeze has entered my mind many nights at 3am.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 12:21
I think he meant rescue shelter there Ridge. Calm down, you are starting to foam at the mouth.
BS, when you put a dog out in the woods, around wildlife, other dogs, strange people, you have no clue how a dog will react, and you sure as hell won't get that information from a book. I remember words like "I don't know why he did that, he's never done that before, sorry" Maybe, the last chapter of the books gives examples of excuses the dog hikers can use to place blame on everyone else.
Ummm... This had nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread. I was just giving advice on a good book Rock could use to find a family dog because he said he was thinking he might want to adopt when he returns from abroad. I think you need to step back and lighten up a bit. Also, I never said that the book would tell you how a dog would react in every possible situation. Noone can tell you that because dogs are like people in that they are a product of both nature and nurture. They can have mental imbalances just like us (my dog does and he is on Prozac).
By the way, how much reading have you done on dog behavior?? My guess is not alot based on your statements. There are so many books on dog behavior that I have filled two bookcase shelves on them and am still getting more.
This is not to say that I don't agree with some of what you said, I just think you need to read what was written before reacting. It would avoid you pissing people off unnecessarily.
Yeah, you might want to stay away from herding breeds, too. A great dog for you might be a mastiff, or something along those lines. There are some great breeds used for guarding livestock, instead of chasing them, which may also be a good fit. I don't like the little yappy dogs, either. My neighbor raises yorkies, and I'll have to admit, antifreeze has entered my mind many nights at 3am.
OMG! Too funny! I have to agree that the yappy dogs are a pain in the you-know-what! Of course, good luck to Rock getting a Mastiff into his house when his wife likes small dogs! That's about as far from small as you can get.
BS, when you put a dog out in the woods, around wildlife, other dogs, strange people, you have no clue how a dog will react, and you sure as hell won't get that information from a book.
Ridge, I couldn't agree more, which is why the person needs to train his dog in the woods, around wildlife and other dogs, and strange people as much as possible. When I took Ed out on the trail the first time, he was like a hyper puppy on speed, coffee, sugar.....you get the point. I was physically exhaused by the 3rd mile, but I hung in there the entire day. He was pulling and choking on the leash so badly, he could barely breathe, and kept hacking (that's a Malinios for ya!). Each time out, it got easier - on him and me. We'd pass another hiker within inches, and he wouldn't even look at them. It isn't "new" anymore, he knows what I expect from him on the trail, and we both get to enjoy it.
The AT is like one big Shelter for lost and stray dogs, Somebody needs to rescue these dogs. I've seen "Lost Dog" posters at trailheads where some poor child has lost a dog because they wouldn't keep it leashed, so I think theres a market there.
The AT is like one big Shelter for lost and stray dogs, Somebody needs to rescue these dogs. I've seen "Lost Dog" posters at trailheads where some poor child has lost a dog because they wouldn't keep it leashed, so I think theres a market there.
Unfortunately, this situation is far worse in our cities than it is on the AT. I think I've mentioned before that we euthanize somewhere around four million dogs per year (that figure may be low since it was an estimate from several years ago) in our shelters. Sad. Of course, I think the problem you are talking about is more prevalent in the southern sections. Not to dump on the south, but generally they don't take the same care with their dogs as people in the north and the spay/neuter message hasn't gotten through down there as well.
I have to admit I would probably end up spending alot of time on my thru trying to help dogs. I'll have to get over that somewhat if I ever expect to finish a thru in a reasonable amount of time.
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 12:39
My aunt rescued a beagle of the trail in VA once. It didn't make it after she took it home. Unfortunately dogs off the trail are not always healthy. My experience out there includes some beat up dogs that shouldn't have been on the trail while their owner is oblivious to the suffering inflicted. Maybe some just "escape"
Unfortunately, this situation is far worse in our cities than it is on the AT. .........
I agree, but I'm trying to stay focused on the trail. And yes, we here in the south take pride in our dogs, we don't want them gassed and most of the folks can't afford to have them fixed. But, I look at Greyhound Racing as the ultimate, as well as organized, dog abuse. Yes, they take excellent care of the animals so they can get as many miles out of that animal as possible. I've was taken to a race in Hialeah, Fl once, the stupidest thing I've ever witnessed, damn if you want to gamble, play the lottery or go to Vegas and put it all on Red, leave the dogs in front of the TV.
I agree, but I'm trying to stay focused on the trail... But, I look at Greyhound Racing as the ultimate, as well as organized, dog abuse...
Yes, back to the trail. And yes, except for dog fighting (which is at least illegal). By the way, I didn't mean that southerners abuse their dogs more than the northerners. Just that they don't often spay/neuter or vaccinate and tend to allow them to roam free more than up here. Not that people here don't allow them to roam free as well - I just think it is more widespread down south.
OK, enough of me picking on the southerners! I'm sorry if I offended them (sort of ;) ). Back to what this was supposed be about (although it's kind of a tired thread).
SGT Rock
07-11-2006, 13:11
Lived down here a long time and never seen a dog fight. From my experience a cock fight is more likely.
Naw, hunting dogs are a bigger source of mistreated dogs in my experience. There are some people that treat good hunting dogs well, and other places where hunting dogs are as expendable as shotgun shells.
SC is the Capital of Dog on Dog fighting as well as Dog on Hog fighting....
SOUTH CAROLINA Dog Fighting Ring Busted
"South Carolina is a favorite spot because
the state has a great deal of rural space, and breeders here have produced
several winning blood lines"
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20040405/023694.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
"leader of a national HOG DOG fighting organization" arrested in SC
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/south_carolina_governor_signs_hog_dog_bill.html
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 15:31
and you being there has detracted from mine. why is it that you feel that your wilderness experience is more important than mine?
Well Gee....General I am so sorry to hear that me being on the trail...simply hiking on it has detracted from your wilderness experience. I don't hike with a dog...just me.....
I do not feel that my experience is any more important than yours.
I asked you to answer a few questions... are you brushing them aside or are you going on the defensive about something.
When did I say that my wilderness experience was more important than yours ? I do not recall saying that...
I do recall you saying that your dog growls at people when he's on a leash...
Good news For all you dog-hikers: Kevlar is being considered for the newest and latest hiking and outdoor fashions.
It doesn't make it more important. But by taking your dog you have decided everyone else's is less important than your own. Your choice to be selfish, not their fault to ask you not to be. I see a difference, sorry you don't.
I guess it goes back to having consideration for others. You only seem to consider yourself and your dog.
i make many alterations to my hike when with dog. most of the time when i hike with dog i stay away from the AT (usually duncan ridge trail or somewhere similar, where i can limit human contact all together). i hike my own hike and everyone else can do the same. i stay away from shelters when on the AT, with dog or without. i do what ever i can to relieve others fear of my dog, which includes keeping him off leash. he acts better off than on, so that's what i do. he's not going to run up to anyone with me holding him by his pack. how is this inconsiderate of others? i don't feel that i am more important than others, but my hike is AS important as anyone elses. sounds like you would have me lower my importance below others just so they feel better about themselves. not gonna happen. sprit wind picked a fight and didn't like what he got. what else would you have me do, back down?
Well Gee....General I am so sorry to hear that me being on the trail...simply hiking on it has detracted from your wilderness experience. I don't hike with a dog...just me.....
I do not feel that my experience is any more important than yours.
I asked you to answer a few questions... are you brushing them aside or are you going on the defensive about something.
When did I say that my wilderness experience was more important than yours ? I do not recall saying that...
I do recall you saying that your dog growls at people when he's on a leash...
you stated that i detract from your wilderness experience so i shouldn't hike with dog because you don't want me to. sounds like you think your wishes are more important than mine. i answered your questions, and i don't dodge anything. you took an aggressive stance against my sarcastic post. when faced with anothers aggression, defense would be the natural reaction. now, may i bow to your need in any other way?
enough of this s**t.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-11-2006, 17:52
Stewed Dog (wedding style)
Serving Size : 30 Preparation Time :3:00
Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
3 kg dog meat
1 1/2 cups vinegar
60 peppercorns -- crushed
6 tablespoons salt
12 cloves garlic -- crushed
1/2 cup cooking oil
6 cups onion -- sliced
3 cups tomato sauce
10 cups boiling water
6 cups red pepper -- cut into strips
6 pieces bay leaf
1 teaspoon tabasco sauce
1 1/2 cups liver spread
1 whole fresh pineapple -- cut 1/2 inch thick
1. First, kill a medium sized dog, then burn off the fur over a hot fire.
2. Carefully remove the skin while still warm and set aside for later (may be
used in other recpies)
3. Cut meat into 1" cubes. Marinade meat in mixture of vinegar,
peppercorn, salt and garlic for 2 hours.
4. Fry meat in oil using a large wok over an open fire, then add onions and
chopped pineapple and suate until tender.
5. Pour in tomato sauce and boiling water, add green peper, bay leaf and
tobasco.
6. Cover and simmer over warm coals until meat is tender. Blend in liver spread
and cook for additional 5-7 minutes.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-11-2006, 17:54
Whoops - I meant to post this in the Cooking section :D
Skidsteer
07-11-2006, 17:54
Stewed Dog (wedding style)
Serving Size : 30 Preparation Time :3:00...
FFD,
Do you have a freezer bag version for that recipe? Thanks in advance.
Whoops - I meant to post this in the Cooking section :D
Since the dog(s) shouldn't be blamed they shouldn't be a ingredient, and since the taste of BS is so bad, that would eliminate their owners.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-11-2006, 18:13
Who's blaming anyone - I just posted a great trail recipe. Skids, I would think you could prepare all the ingredients except the meat as directed, dehydrate, and obtain & prepare the meat on site. Most shelters have a fire pit...
Before anyone calls PETA, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.
Skidsteer
07-11-2006, 18:21
Skids, I would think you could prepare all the ingredients except the meat as directed, dehydrate, and obtain & prepare the meat on site.
Before anyone calls PETA, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.
Great idea! It'll save weight. No sense carrying something so easily found on the trail.
RockyTrail
07-11-2006, 18:22
I've been a dog owner for most of my life. That being said, I think many dog owners can't keep their emotions and identity separated from the animal.
Arguing with them about their animals' behavior is like arguing politics and religion.
It takes a good amount of mental fortitude to keep proper perspective on owning and caring for an animal. Some people don't have the dedication or maturity to do it.
The shift from agrarian to urban lifestyles over the past 50 years has made it even more difficult in my opinion.
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 19:50
sprit wind picked a fight and didn't like what he got. what else would you have me do, back down?
? Now...... I picked a fight ?
I never said your hike was more important than my hike and never "picked a fight" Your defense mode is clearly noted....
What did I get that I didn't like ?
This is an open forum...a message board.....a place to discuss issues, find information, offer information....how does what one does with a simple keyboard and the internet constitute a "fight"
Could it be that you are not liking what you're hearing from others concerning the way you handle your dog while hiking.
Did you consider the law when it comes to having your dog running free....
You never answered or mentioned anything about that...I am still waiting.
Leash Laws apply to your dog in some areas....do you abide by the law in those areas ? Are you aware of where those areas are ?
generoll
07-11-2006, 20:09
speed limits also apply in most areas and i'm sure none of us ever break those laws. i kinda think that leash laws are the exception rather then the rule and the national parks aside, i've never heard of a back country area that had a leash law. can you cite some? with references please. i'd prefer something other then someones unsupported word.
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 20:27
you stated that i detract from your wilderness experience so i shouldn't hike with dog because you don't want me to. sounds like you think your wishes are more important than mine. i answered your questions, and i don't dodge anything. you took an aggressive stance against my sarcastic post. when faced with anothers aggression, defense would be the natural reaction. now, may i bow to your need in any other way?
enough of this s**t.
When did I say that "YOU" detract from my wilderness experience...The AT is a hiking trail and one would logically expect to run into other people from time to time...after all, the trail is for people to hike on right ?
I don't recall saying that I don't want you to hike with your dog. Honesty, I'd rather you didn't and I'll make that statement now for all to see...but I only say that from what I have gathered from you about the dog and how it acts towards people.
BUT it seems that to me, in my opinion, through your recent posts that perhaps you get angry easy and you have mentioned that your dog growls at people. Again, it is my opinion that a dog that growls at people simply because they are walking along the Appalachian Trail, having done nothing to that dog other than walk by it....indicates to me that perhaps that animal shouldn't be on the Appalachian Trail.
My opinion continues with the notion that if you are not able to control the dog from growling at people, leashed or otherwise you are not in control of that animal and further my opinion is that if you are unable to control the animal it should at very least be on a leash for the safety of people who should have to come into contact with it as well as the fact that many areas require by LAW that the dog be on a leash. Your continued arguement to keep your dog off leash and free continues to be viewed by me as inconsiderate to all trail users whether they hike with dogs or not.
You obviously will continue to do as you please with your dog while hiking
without regard to other users of the trail.
You have not commented about being aware of leash laws for the areas you hike....Is it possible that your dog running free is against the law where you hike ? Why do such laws exist ? Why are there leash laws ?
Are you telling the "whole" story about when your dog got kicked ?
Did a hiker really just come up to you and kick the "s#*t" out of your dog for no reason at all.........if so I'd imagine that your dog views hikers as a potential threat.....due to its past experiences.....
PROBABLY....the same way that hikers who have had similar experiences with dogs coming up for no reason and biting them view dogs...and I can tell you that some of those hikers would feel a lot better seeing you holding that dog by a leash.
Now...If my text has offended you, my point of view seems threatening to you...my words or tone seeem harsh... I do apologize
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 20:33
speed limits also apply in most areas and i'm sure none of us ever break those laws. i kinda think that leash laws are the exception rather then the rule and the national parks aside, i've never heard of a back country area that had a leash law. can you cite some? with references please. i'd prefer something other then someones unsupported word.
So are you saying that you would ignore a sign that read
"Dogs must be leashed"
Are you saying that I should provide you the information regarding leash laws ? I do not hike with a dog...If I did it would be my RESPONSIBILITY to find out what the Federal, State and Local laws are concerning dogs running free. Are you saying then that you have no idea whether you are breaking the law by letting the dog run free ?
You saying that you think "leash laws are the exception to the rule"
speaks volumes.
Ramble~On
07-11-2006, 21:15
If I were going to hike anywhere on the AT with a dog as a concerned, considerate, responsible dog owner I would have to do some serious research to make sure I was in compliance with the law.
I would likewise have to understand the rights of my fellow trail users who in some states might legally destroy my pet "if it growls, snaps at, runs after or chases any person or persons"...
I suppose that a great deal of my planning for a hike on the AT would have to be spent researching the State laws as well as the laws as they pertain to Wildlife Areas, State Parks, State Forests, National Forests, State Game Lands.....individual counties, cities and towns....in fact, if I were a dog owner and planned to hike the entire AT with my dog I could face some serious fines and legal problems without a thorough understanding of laws as they pertain to dogs. In some places I could hike with the dog unleashed until sunset and at that time I'd be breaking the law if I didn't leash the dog...in other places I would be breaking the law simply by having the dog after sunset, leashed or not.
Then there would be all sorts of other instances where a fellow hiker could within their legal right take action against me or my dog if my dog
"approached a person when not on the owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack" I suppose that the perception of the hiker regarding a given dogs behavior would come into play there.
Yup...If I were going to hike anywhere with my dog....as a considerate, responsible dog owner I would do some research before I left the house.
I would probably educate myself as well.....maybe read a book or two about hiking with dogs.....Dog Ethics...
I knew you all could do it. After thousands of posts; with all the same old arguments, same players, and just different words, you all finally have this pro dog - anti dog thing resolved. Congrats to all for your fine work.:rolleyes:
I 2nd that FatMan. I just wanted to give a shout out to all the hikers who take their dogs and say all others be damned, I hike with my dog, my way so deal with it! I also want to give a shout out to all the hikers who wouldn't back down and stuck to their guns in denouncing the hikers who bring their dogs and calling the 90 to 95% the ...holes they know they are! Congratulations for helping us find the empathy we need to see each others point of view.:rolleyes:
Have you guys read this page from this dog-hikers journal?
He makes a lot of sense for the hiker and for the dog.
http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/9510/msg00075.html
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 2% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog each year. This translates to nearly 5 million dog bite victims per year, most of whom are children. In a 10-year period, the number of dogs rose by 2%, while the number of bites increased by 33%. About 1,000 dog bite victims arrive in hospital emergency rooms per day for treatment. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with $345 million paid by homeowner insurance policies."
I know of one of these bites probably include me, I filed a report at the ER and was told my cost for rabies treatment, ER, and MD's cost would be in the $4000-5000 range. Not cheap, especially if a hiker has no health insurance and the dog owner has long fled.
So is "Uncle Wolf" one of the 5% or 95%?
If I were going to hike anywhere on the AT with a dog as a concerned, considerate, responsible dog owner I would have to do some serious research to make sure I was in compliance with the law.
I would likewise have to understand the rights of my fellow trail users who in some states might legally destroy my pet "if it growls, snaps at, runs after or chases any person or persons"...
I suppose that a great deal of my planning for a hike on the AT would have to be spent researching the State laws as well as the laws as they pertain to Wildlife Areas, State Parks, State Forests, National Forests, State Game Lands.....individual counties, cities and towns....in fact, if I were a dog owner and planned to hike the entire AT with my dog I could face some serious fines and legal problems without a thorough understanding of laws as they pertain to dogs. In some places I could hike with the dog unleashed until sunset and at that time I'd be breaking the law if I didn't leash the dog...in other places I would be breaking the law simply by having the dog after sunset, leashed or not.
Then there would be all sorts of other instances where a fellow hiker could within their legal right take action against me or my dog if my dog
"approached a person when not on the owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack" I suppose that the perception of the hiker regarding a given dogs behavior would come into play there.
Yup...If I were going to hike anywhere with my dog....as a considerate, responsible dog owner I would do some research before I left the house.
I would probably educate myself as well.....maybe read a book or two about hiking with dogs.....Dog Ethics...
policies are stated on those fiberglass signs at trail heads. you know, they stand about 3 feet tall, are about three inches wide, and are usually brown or blue. they state all kinds of information like: trail difficulty, atv use prohibited or allowed, horses prohibited or allowed, and yes, dogs on a leash or not. no sign or otherwise posted statement, no leash law.
generoll
07-12-2006, 07:42
there are quite a few people who are making unsupported claims regarding leash laws along the AT. I've already stated that I don't take my dog on the AT because of inconsiderate hikers who can't be bothered to bury their feces in an appropriate manner. I've also stated here in this thread that I've quit hiking with my dog at all because he's too old now and just doesn't want to go.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but since some insist on missing the point, I'll reiterate. If you are going to claim that any portions of the AT have leash laws, be prepared to PROVE IT! As I already stated, the Nat'l Parks aside, I know of no place along the trail the requires a leashed dog. Do you? If so put up or shut up. And of course I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-12-2006, 08:03
Have you guys read this page from this dog-hikers journal? He makes a lot of sense for the hiker and for the dog. http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/9510/msg00075.htmlThis is the best discourse on hiking with a dog I've ever seen. It makes it clear that hiking with a dog is akin to hiking with a child. If you choose to bring your canine companion, then you choose to forego a lot of opportunities that are available to other hikers.
Imagine what it would have been like for Troll and Anchor hiking with 10 yo Oblivious in 2005 if "No Children" signs were as plentiful as "No Pets' signs? Do you think for a minute they would have considered leaving Oblivious outside on the sidewalk for 2 hours as they enjoyed an AYCE buffet? For 30 minutes while they resupplied in a grocery store? Overnight because children were not allowed in whatever facility (hostel, motel, etc.) where they were spending the night? While I understand a dog is not a child, do you honestly think a dog enjoys:
Being on a hot sidewalk outside while you eat that AYCE buffet?
Out in the wind & rain as you resupply?
Cut off from your companionship in a variety of situations where he is not welcomed?If you choose to bring your canine companion, you choose to limit you mileage to whatever is comfortable for your dog instead of what you can do. Do you think Troll and Anchor would have pressed on for miles with a limping and obliviously tired Oblivious in tow? Do you think Anchor & Troll wouldn't have scaled back the daily mileage had Oblivious been dropping off to sleep the second they stopped hiking every night (an indication of exhaustion)?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-12-2006, 08:20
... the Nat'l Parks aside, I know of no place along the trail the requires a leashed dog. Do you? If so put up or shut up. And of course I mean that in the nicest possible way.Generoll, here are the regulations for several sorts of managed wilderness areas. Basically, dogs must be on a leash in all state parks, national parks that allow them and national forest. http://www.explorerdog.com/parks/parkregs.htm
there are quite a few people who are making unsupported claims regarding leash laws along the AT. I've already stated that I don't take my dog on the AT because of inconsiderate hikers who can't be bothered to bury their feces in an appropriate manner. I've also stated here in this thread that I've quit hiking with my dog at all because he's too old now and just doesn't want to go.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but since some insist on missing the point, I'll reiterate. If you are going to claim that any portions of the AT have leash laws, be prepared to PROVE IT! As I already stated, the Nat'l Parks aside, I know of no place along the trail the requires a leashed dog. Do you? If so put up or shut up. And of course I mean that in the nicest possible way.
I think Spiritwind's point is that the AT resides in many town and states along the way and these places do have leash and other laws pertaining to dogs. You make it sound like the AT and other trails in wilderness areas are like another country and if the sign at the trailhead doesn't say anything that you don't have to do anything. Does this mean that if the sign at the trailhead doesn't say you can't kill anyone that murder is legal on trail?? Makes no sense. I can personally say that the AT goes through my state (CT) and there is a state law that requires dogs to be on leash. This would include your time on the AT. Not that many people actually follow that law, but we've already heard lot about that :rolleyes: .
Two Speed
07-12-2006, 09:33
I knew you all could do it. After thousands of posts; with all the same old arguments, same players, and just different words, you all finally have this pro dog - anti dog thing resolved. Congrats to all for your fine work.:rolleyes:Methinks you were a just a bit more optimistic than the evidence supports.
RockyTrail
07-12-2006, 10:00
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 2% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog each year. This translates to nearly 5 million dog bite victims per year, most of whom are children. .
Interesting stat, Ridge. One thing I have learned, no matter how cute and fluffy the animal, you cannot assume anything about its behavior. I love dogs, but I think we read too much into them sometimes.
Did you see the recent news articles about the lady in France that received the world's first face transplant? (I'm not kidding, they gave her a face from a cadaver). The reason she needed that done is her pet dog literally bit and chewed her face off. The dog was a Lab, one of the sweetest dispositioned breeds out there. Go figure...
..... The reason she needed that done is her pet dog literally bit and chewed her face off. The dog was a Lab, one of the sweetest dispositioned beeds out there. Go figure...
Her leash was too long or she was passed out and the Lab was attempting a snout to mouth resuscitation and got a little carried away.
Yea, and most of the child bites in the CDC stats were probably the family dog. You know, the ones you see unleashed on the trail with their owner.
Rain Man
07-12-2006, 14:08
policies are stated on those fiberglass signs at trail heads. you know, they stand about 3 feet tall, are about three inches wide, and are usually brown or blue. ... no sign or otherwise posted statement, no leash law.
So, if I understand your "logic," it's okay to murder on the AT, because those signs don't say "No Murder"????
Rain:sunMan
.
So, if I understand your "logic," it's okay to murder on the AT, because those signs don't say "No Murder"????
Rain:sunMan
.
Didn't I say that about four posts ago? ;)
the goat
07-12-2006, 14:22
So, if I understand your "logic," it's okay to murder on the AT, because those signs don't say "No Murder"????
.
leash laws are not the accepted law of the land. in a great many counties, boroughs & parishes in this country, there are no leash laws whatsoever.
however, murder is illegal everywhere.
Ramble~On
07-12-2006, 14:27
My point didn't get through to him.
I admit defeat......"there are some people you just can't reach"
We have laws in this country for a reason....citizens have certain rights...
Just as anyone has the right to take 10 dogs with them on a hike....I have the right to enjoy areas where dogs are not allowed or must, by law be leashed. It's too bad that there are people who think only of themselves and care none for others.
Whoops - I meant to post this in the Cooking section :D
Been reading a Korean cook book again?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-12-2006, 16:06
Philippino recipe for a wedding celebration.
the goat
07-12-2006, 16:29
My point didn't get through to him.
I admit defeat......"there are some people you just can't reach"
We have laws in this country for a reason....citizens have certain rights...
Just as anyone has the right to take 10 dogs with them on a hike....I have the right to enjoy areas where dogs are not allowed or must, by law be leashed. It's too bad that there are people who think only of themselves and care none for others.
no need to "admit defeat"... i wasn't even responding to your point, that's why i didn't quote you in my post. i actually quoted rain man, and hence was responding to his point, not yours.
leash laws are not the accepted law of the land. in a great many counties, boroughs & parishes in this country, there are no leash laws whatsoever.
however, murder is illegal everywhere.
But that wasn't the point I/Rain Main/Spirit Wind was trying to make. The point is that signs at trail-heads can't be taken to be the only law of that trail. OK, so murder was perhaps a little extreme of a case to make but the fact of the matter is that leash laws are the accepted law in many towns and states along the trail and just because it doesn't say so on a trail sign doesn't mean you don't have to follow those laws.
The "NO LITTERING" rules are better observed than any "KEEP DOG LEASHED" rule. Its too bad that the 99% of people that do take dogs on the trail never see posts and treads like here at WB.
the goat
07-12-2006, 17:33
the fact of the matter is that leash laws are the accepted law in many towns and states along the trail and just because it doesn't say so on a trail sign doesn't mean you don't have to follow those laws.
obviously.
Generoll, here are the regulations for several sorts of managed wilderness areas. Basically, dogs must be on a leash in all state parks, national parks that allow them and national forest. http://www.explorerdog.com/parks/parkregs.htm
not so.
in the chattahoochee national forest dogs must be on leash in developed campgrounds and rec sites (meaning those campgrounds for rv's, public swimming areas etc).
http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/rec/rules.htm
same for jefferson and george washington national forest
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/general_ingo/index.shtml
also for white mountain national forest
http://www.395.com/index.shtml?/generalinfo/whguide.shtml
the AT is not a developed campground or recreation area.
couldn't find information (either way) on cherokee, nantahala, or pisgah national forests outside state or national parks
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-12-2006, 18:44
Individual FS location may have their own rules for campgrounds, but the Code of Federal Regulation covers primitive areas and this is what it says:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&TITLE=36&PART=261&SECTION=8&SUBPART=&TYPE=TEXT
I personally appreciate all the hard work involving helping us with leashing rules along the trail, but if dog-hikers will slip their dogs into the GSMNP, stealth camp, etc, then they'll do anything to take a dog, an unleashed dog usually. I've seen pix of hikers posing with their dog at shelters in the Smokies. They have no manners.
Individual FS location may have their own rules for campgrounds, but the Code of Federal Regulation covers primitive areas and this is what it says:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&TITLE=36&PART=261&SECTION=8&SUBPART=&TYPE=TEXT
that's good. at least now i know that if someone shoots my dog, i can have them arrested.
that's good. at least now i know that if someone shoots my dog, i can have them arrested.
It might not be the dog they shoot. In reference to the Pine Canyon Tragedy, School teacher shooting the hiker, not the dogs article I linked to earlier.
generoll
07-12-2006, 19:36
at the present in this country, anything not prohibited is permitted. comparing murder to unleashed dogs is asinine. many if not most parks do have leash laws. some townships have leash laws. as far as i am aware, wilderness areas do not have leash laws. the statutes qouted were interesting, but they appeared to be a mishmash of city, county,state, and federal regulations which might or might not have a bearing on what takes place on the Appalachian Trail or other trails.
what i'm saying is that under our federal system of government, the national government doesn't make the pet laws for cities, yet the statutes quoted (if that's what they were) seemed to be a blanket set of regulations covering every part of the country. doesn't really seem likely.
From the CDC-Atlanta: "In a 10-year period, the number of dogs rose by 2%, while the number of bites increased by 33%. About 1,000 dog bite victims arrive in hospital emergency rooms per day for treatment"
With these kind of stats, the gov should crack down on leashing and fencing laws. 1000 bites per day sounds like something to "bark" about.
Rain Man
07-12-2006, 21:24
at the present in this country, anything not prohibited is permitted. comparing murder to unleashed dogs is asinine. ...
Well, you know what they say, we've all got 'em.
Most of the "asinine" stuff posted in these threads is by a very small, very vocal group who claim their treatment of dogs trumps everyone else, and apparently, sometimes even known leash laws and/or outright prohibitions. I suppose a little bit of "asinine" on the side of the good guys should be okay!
But, I didn't compare unleashed dogs to murder. I applied his "asinine" logic to a case he's not so over-the-top about. I think it showed very well how absurd his logic was. Sorry if you couldn't tell the difference.
;)
Rain:sunMan
.
It might not be the dog they shoot. In reference to the Pine Canyon Tragedy, School teacher shooting the hiker, not the dogs article I linked to earlier. I read that link you posted. The hiker was not shot because his dog threatened the teacher. After the teacher fired warning shots because he felt threatened by the dog, the owner/hiker quickly approached the teacher and verbally threatened his life. The teacher reacted to this by killing the hiker. The courts ruled self-defence. Ridge, at least be more honest and less dramatic in your 2 cents. The people you are trying to influence may actually value your contributions more.
I read that link you posted. The hiker was not shot because his dog threatened the teacher. After the teacher fired warning shots because he felt threatened by the dog, the owner/hiker quickly approached the teacher and verbally threatened his life. The teacher reacted to this by killing the hiker. The courts ruled self-defence. Ridge, at least be more honest and less dramatic in your 2 cents. The people you are trying to influence may actually value your contributions more.
My 2c is if there had been no dogs, or at least if they had been leashed, the owner would still be alive. But, I guess you can say he died doing what he wanted to do hiking with uncontrollable dogs, off leash.
generoll
07-12-2006, 23:10
You saying that you think "leash laws are the exception to the rule"
speaks volumes.
It's pretty clear that you misquoted me there. you had to type that out by hand. here's what i actually said and this was by cut and paste " i kinda think that leash laws are the exception rather then the rule"
not sure which volumes you think your misqoute speaks to, but common courtesy would suggest that if you seek to make a point by qouting someone, you qoute them accurately at the very least. please tell me that you understand the difference between my statement and your misquote of that statement?
Nightwalker
07-12-2006, 23:13
Gee, have you guys read the somewhat new, and very long, members agreement/acceptable use policy?
I'd bet that a few of the posts on this thread get close, lol. :eek:
Ridge in post # 228 you said:
It might not be the dogs they shoot. In reference to the Pine Canyon Tragedy, school teacher shooting the hiker, not the dogs article I linked to earlier. All I did was fill in the details of the "tragedy". http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special21/articles/0325trailshooter.html Mentally unstable man runs towards and threatens the life of a man who has just fired warning shots in response to a perceived threat of a dog attack. The schoolteacher kills the dog owner and is eventually found not guilty by reason of self-defence. Your use of this tragic case to falsly imply that a perceived threat of a dog can be responded to by shooting the owner is why I posted:
Ridge, at least be more honest and less dramatic in your 2 cents Of course after my attempt at clearing up your muddy reply you responded with:
My 2c is that if there had been no dogs, or at least if they had been leashed, the owner would still be alive. But, I guess you could say he died doing what he wanted to do hiking with uncontrollable dogs, off leash. Way to make a terribly complex event that resulted in a death and untold emotional concequences for ALL families involved seem like an "I told you so". You were not there. The schoolteacher was not even touched by the dogs. He did, however protect himself from the threat from the deceased. He was found not-guilty/self defence. The fact that the deceased may have had mental problems does not seem to matter to you when you use this case as a warning to hikers who elect to bring their dog along. If you REALLY want to enlighten people save the drama for your mama.
The teacher had no clue the owner was deranged. It started from firing warning shots at or around the dogs. I probably would not have killed the guy, maybe shot him in the leg. And, I would have interpreted it as "Road Rage" on the trail, instead of some mental problem, which they both are. As far as shooting dogs, I'd say its last resort before getting bit, just like not knowing this guy was mental, how does one know the dog getting ready to bite you doesn't have rabies? And, if you are bitten, its a sure bet your dog and its owner are fleeing, and you'll have to take your chance. Hope, you can appreciate what it feels like to have a bite wound and must decide on taking the expensive rabies shots.
Ramble~On
07-13-2006, 02:56
no need to "admit defeat"... i wasn't even responding to your point, that's why i didn't quote you in my post. i actually quoted rain man, and hence was responding to his point, not yours.
Yes, And I should have specified because I wasn't talking about you but general.
LostInSpace
07-13-2006, 09:54
I hate to belabor the obvious, but since some insist on missing the point, I'll reiterate. If you are going to claim that any portions of the AT have leash laws, be prepared to PROVE IT! As I already stated, the Nat'l Parks aside, I know of no place along the trail the requires a leashed dog. Do you? If so put up or shut up.
One example (see link for "proof): The AT in Virginia, after a rerouting a year or so ago, goes through Sky Meadows State Park (http://www.state.va.us/dcr/parks/skymeado.htm). A ranger told my hiking partner, while I was present, the park has a zero tolerance policy regrading leash law enforcement and a $95 fine for the first offense.
"Trails: Hiking and bridle trails. Hiking trails - The park has six hiking trails ranging from less than one mile to almost two miles long. There is a one-mile nature trail for hiking only. In addition, the park offers access to the Appalachian Trail. The park is a three day hike from Harper’s Ferry, W. Va., and two days from Shenandoah National Park. To protect our wildlife, all pets must be kept on a leash no longer than six feet. Vehicles and bicycles are permitted only on paved park roads."
Rain Man
07-13-2006, 10:24
Gee, have you guys read the somewhat new, and very long, members agreement/acceptable use policy?
I'd bet that a few of the posts on this thread get close, lol. :eek:
Hey Frank! I read the agreement/policy once or twice. Then I spent months watching special folks be allowed by the Moderators to post the most petty, mean-spirited cheap shots and zingers, often with vulgar and blatantly obscene words (admittedly with a customary asterisk in place of a vowel or two).
So, I don't know what the policy is. The written unenforced one? Or the one actually permanently allowed? Beats me.
In any case, I refuse to follow suit with such antics, even if it seems to be allowed.
Rain:sunMan
.
generoll
07-13-2006, 15:12
O.K., "Lost..", thanks for taking the time to gather some facts. I'll add some state parks to the list of places which have leash laws. And of course where the AT goes through a state park the leash laws would apply.
Personally I've found coon dogs to be a bigger nuisance then hikers dogs, but I suppose that some people just have zero tolerance for dogs. Kinda the way I feel about cats. But then, I don't try to impose my views on others. I just deal with it.
.....Personally I've found coon dogs to be a bigger nuisance then hikers dogs, .......
Bear Dogs, but thankfully you've only got a week or so of them during the season. Black Bears get poached in the name of Coon Hunting, Bear Hunters disguised as Coon Hunters with dogs are the main culprits.
Rain Man
07-13-2006, 17:08
... I suppose that some people just have zero tolerance for dogs. ...
Hmmmmm ... can you back that up with quotes from this thread? I can't recall "some people" saying they have zero tolerance for dogs, but if I'm wrong it's not the first and won't be the last time. It's just that these over-the-top claims by whiney "dog lovers" are just so ridiculous.
Unless my memory is pretty bad, many folks stating concerns actually have dogs themselves. Others complain about the dog owners, NOT the dogs. Others merely ask for quite reasonably control and that dogs not be allowed to run wild. Zero tolerance? "M'thinks the Lady doth protest too much."
Rain:sunMan
.
Nightwalker
07-13-2006, 21:23
So, I don't know what the policy is. The written unenforced one? Or the one actually permanently allowed? Beats me.
Rain:sunMan
I think the policy was made pretty clear: The rules are what we say they are. You have no right to question who we enforce them against, or you're gone. You have no right to question how we enforce them, or you're gone. You have no right to question our interpretation of them, or you're gone. Any questions? Yes? Then you're gone.
Sounded awfully W*ngf**tish, but probably not. I'm guessing that they were put in place because of the recent Jack and Warren show.
It's kind of funny, but I remember just a few years ago when a big deal was made of us going over 500 members. I remember the worst problem being an ex admin. I remember when the admins made a big deal about this being a place where just about anything was allowed, because nobody was being a true arsewipe on a very regular basis.
Times change. Websites change. I guess just about everything changes. I'm not in a very good mood. I really hope that changes soon.
The Old Fhart
07-14-2006, 14:30
Just to clear up one point, General in post #224 has a link that he says has dog regulations in the White Mountain National Forest. The link is actually to Inyo National Forest in the Sierra Nevada range in California, nowhere near the A.T.. There is an area in Inyo National Forest called the "White Mountains".
generoll
07-14-2006, 17:56
no Rain Man, i can't find the exact words "zero tolerance for dogs" in this thread. nor do i intend to hunt for them. in fact there are some who love dogs so much they've included recipes for them. i do think that it's not unreasonable to infer that some people just plain don't like dogs. whether that rises to the level of 'zero tolerance' or not is a matter of individual interpretation. call it like you see it. i do.
Just to clear up one point, General in post #224 has a link that he says has dog regulations in the White Mountain National Forest. The link is actually to Inyo National Forest in the Sierra Nevada range in California, nowhere near the A.T.. There is an area in Inyo National Forest called the "White Mountains".
yep. your absoulutely right. sorry about that. my mistake.
yep. your absoulutely right. sorry about that. my mistake.
I thought I was the only one making mistakes, and being phony on WB.
I thought I was the only one making mistakes, and being phony on WB.
look here. i made an honest mistake reading too fast in order to quickly justify my point. if you want to take digs at me for admitting that i was wrong about 1/3 of my proof, then go right ahead. if you think that i actually care about what you think, say, or do, then you've got another thing coming. keep showing your a**, it really raises my opinion of you. as for being phony, i have been nothing but true to my cause(s).
I wasn't trying to be a butt General, I was just glad to see that I'm not the only one that does the same thing. Sorry you took it the wrong way.