Thru hiking with dogs?

[Jack Tarlin]

Frieden---

I've read this whole thread, but haven't commented yet.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a beef with your desire that you "could train the people" to interact better with your pet.

Wrong.

It's the dog that needs training.

If you bring a dog on your hike, people will indeed approach him, will talk to him, will pet him. If the dog is at all skittish about these frequent contacts with strangers, and if he reacts badly, by getting agitated, by barking, by growling, by jumping on people, then he's not ready for the Trail yet, and he needs to go home. A Trail dog needs to be able to respond to its owner's voice command IMMEDIATELY and at all times, and just as important, he needs to able to deal with strange people without freaking out.

The three biggest problems with dogs on the Trail are owners who don't pay enough attention to their pet and who allow the dog to create problems; dogs who won't respond to voice commands, i.e. were never properly trained to do so; and dogs who can't deal with the continual presence of other people., again because of poor (or more likely, non-existent training before the trip). It is NOT up to other folks on the Trail to conform and behave according to your expectations. Quite the opposite is true. It is up to the owner to make sure their animal is properly trained and conditioned before they take it anywhere near the Trail.

Most of the dogs I've seen on the Trail (and I've seen hundreds) simply do not belong there. And I view this as an OWNER problem, not a dog problem. But dogs jumping on people is not "socialization" and dogs reacting poorly when having to deal with other hikers is not a "people" problem that can be cured by your desire to "train" hikers. In both cases, this is an OWNER problem, and the only way to rsolve it is if owners are responsible enough to not bring their dog on their hikes until the dog is trained suffieciently to behave correctly, and regrettably, the vast ammount of the time, this is not the case.

[frieden]

Well then leave his service vest on him.
It isn't possible to leave it on him all the time, but I'm going to try to get a blaze orange harness, and sew on "service dog" in large letters. I would rather do that with a collar and leash, but I don't know if it would be noticeable enough. I have some blaze orange material that I got for making SAR vests. I could sew him a simple, lightweight service dog vest, which I could throw in the washer, or hand wash. That's not a bad idea. Thanks, Rock. Just needed to get these ol' gears movin'!

[Lone Wolf]

Jack is right. And why is it you need a service dog?

[SGT Rock]

I'm reading a lot about dogs not being on a leash on the trail, and most of it negative. Is that because the uneventful experiences with dogs on a leash are overshadowed with the nasty experiences with dogs off leash? Or, are most of the dogs on the AT off leash? I'm getting a wee bit concerned. It sounds like I'd better keep my bear spray at the ready all the time to keep the loose dogs away from Ed. I'm starting to accept the fact that I'll have to take him off of his leash to get over some obstacles, but what about the dangers of the trail (wild and domestic animals, poison ivy, human/animal feces, etc)? He's going to be meeting up with dangers that he has never experienced before. On a leash, if I watch his body language, I can pull him away instantly. Off leash, I could end up with a dead or stinky dog. I guess the dogs that go off leash are used to the trail, and it's dangers?

From my experience, greater than 50% (probably around 75%) of the dogs you are going to encounter are off leash. I hope you really do think training dog owners is a doable cause because you can spend you whole hike trying. Add to that every dog on a leash ain't always the best, and simply having a dog on a leash isn't enough to control them - read other posts about how dog owners with dogs suddenly realize how strong their dog really is when they develope an interest in something. Add to that the distance to you can be mere inches on a 18" wide trail as you pass that leashed dog on a 6' leash if they are even on one. This last weekend we had a near bitting incident on the BMT with a leashed dog!

You and your service dog will probably draw even more attention to some of these dogs than just a simple hiker and it may be that a small portion of these dogs will see your dog as some sort of theat (they probably can't tell he is a service dog) and just one of these encounters could end your hike for your dog. I am not trying to be negative, just trying to tell you what it will most likely really be like.

[frieden]

Jack, I don't mind your comments at all. I'm not trying to train hikers. I seriously doubt that a hiker is going to encourage a muddy, stinky dog to jump up on them ... unlike the yuppies who like to wrestle with the freshly shampooed pooch. "Oh, what a cute puppy! Come 'ere!" (as they pound their chest). If you've been reading my posts, then you know that training is our middle name. We are not just doing town training, but trail training, before the AT. All this training is to ensure his enjoyment, as well as for others. If he has problems with the trail training (which he hasn't so far), we won't go.

[frieden]

You and your service dog will probably draw even more attention to some of these dogs than just a simple hiker and it may be that a small portion of these dogs will see your dog as some sort of theat (they probably can't tell he is a service dog) and just one of these encounters could end your hike for your dog. I am not trying to be negative, just trying to tell you what it will most likely really be like.
Thanks, Sgt. Rock. I'll have to ask my sister how to train him for that.

[Jack Tarlin]

I encourage your attitude, and I wish you both luck.

Also, it's imperative that people can clearly see that your pet is a service dog, (as well as you're having written proof of this at all times) or you WILL encounter problems, in such places as restaurants, retail stores, markets, Post offices, etc. I have a friend with a service dog, and this happens all the time, as he has no obvious disability when you see him.....it just looks like a guy with a dog on a leash.

And going back a ways, I remember one of your posts where you mentioned that you had a legal right to bring the dog anywhere open to the public. While this may in fact be technically true, this doesn't necessarily mean that you should always practice this, regardless of whether or not it's your "right." For example, a private home that is also a hiker hostel may have very compelling reasons for barring dogs: Perhaps they have kids who are frightened of dogs or are allergic; perhpas they've had a problem in the past with unruly animals; perhaps there's been property damage or legal threats from guests who were bitten by someone's pet, etc. (This applies to motels as well). There are all sorts of reasons why some places don't want dogs, and the reasons are usually pretty good.

And it certainly applies to shelters; this is another place where your dog absolutely doesn't belong, for any number of reasons.

In short, one's "right" to bring a service dog anywhere doesn't necessarily mean this always a good thing to do: There are absolutlely places where you dog doesn't belong, and I hope you respect this and don't "force" the dog's presence on anyone. Just because Federal law might permit you to bring the dog everywhere you go doesn't necessarily mean this is a good thing to do, and I hope you keep this in mind. Sometimes, there are perfectly valid reasons why a facility or a place is "dog free," and people need to respect this.

[Lone Wolf]

Jack are you referring to Mala and his "service" dog? He needs a service dog about as much as I do. :rolleyes:

[Jack Tarlin]

The point isn't his "need." The point is that he's permitted to have one, and has been certified in that regard.

He is also one of the most conscientious dog-owners I know, and is constantly paying attention to both the needs and behavior of his pet.

If more dog owners were as good as him, the discussions about whether or not dogs belong on the Trail would be a lot shorter.

[Lone Wolf]

Sounds like it's easy to get a permit.

[Jack Tarlin]

I dunno about that.....but the point is, he went thru whatever channels necessary, he did it by the book, obeyed the law, and is a great dog owner.

I think most Trail Dogs are a pain in the ass, but Mala's dog Tucker is a notable exception, and is a pleasure to be around.

Of course Tucker's owner is another matter altogether!!

[SGT Rock]

Sounds like it's easy to get a permit.

I did a little research and it looks like it is easier than you might even think.:



How Do I Tell If My Dog is a Service Dog?

If you are disabled as defined by the ADA, that is, if you have a condition that substantually limits a life function, and your dog does one thing for you, like picking up dropped items, or helping you walk by supporting you, or responding to a medical condition in a manner that you trained, then your dog IS a service dog. Certification is not required. If you are unsure if your dog is a service dog, please call me, and I'll give you my expert opinion on the matter.

"Train your own service dog" Retrieved 19 Oct 2005 from http://sdog.danawheels.net/ot-adog.shtml

and from another site:


According to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a service animal must be individually trained to do work or tasks of benefit to a disabled individual in order to be legally elevated from pet status to service animal status. The following list identifies a number of tasks a service dog could be trained to do that would serve to mitigate a disabling condition classified as a psychiatric disability. In particular, the tasks were developed for those who become disabled by Panic Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome ( PTSD), or Depression, conditions attributed to a brain chemistry malfunction.

Which could mean I could get a service animal if my PTSD got bad and the services could include things like barking or carrying a beverage and a cell phone:


Backpacking Medical Related Supplies / Information

Some may protest that this should not be counted as a task, but it deserves a mention because it is so very useful to assistance dog partners who may be in need of the items being carried by the service dog. The dog must be specifically schooled to calmly permit strangers such as emergency personnel to search the backpacks in a medical crisis so they can obtain the human partner’s Medic Alert information, the dog’s emergency care-giver information card or other instructions the dog may be carrying in case the need arises.

Dog carries Medication in the backpack in case of a panic attack, other symptoms. Also may carry a Beverage, plus a Cell Phone or Beeper, AND Instructions For Emergency Personnel, such as Who To Call if a patient is having a Disassociation spell, a flashback, or if serious medication side effects, an injury or other problems deprive the handler of the ability to provide important information about the team.

"Service dog tasks for psychiatric disabilities" Retrieved 19 Oct 2005 from http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html

So I guess if my PTSD ever got bad I could train my dog to cary a pack with a cell phone, water bottle and some purple pills.

[Chip]

Frieden---

I've read this whole thread, but haven't commented yet.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a beef with your desire that you "could train the people" to interact better with your pet.

Wrong.

It's the dog that needs training.

If you bring a dog on your hike, people will indeed approach him, will talk to him, will pet him. If the dog is at all skittish about these frequent contacts with strangers, and if he reacts badly, by getting agitated, by barking, by growling, by jumping on people, then he's not ready for the Trail yet, and he needs to go home. A Trail dog needs to be able to respond to its owner's voice command IMMEDIATELY and at all times, and just as important, he needs to able to deal with strange people without freaking out.

The three biggest problems with dogs on the Trail are owners who don't pay enough attention to their pet and who allow the dog to create problems; dogs who won't respond to voice commands, i.e. were never properly trained to do so; and dogs who can't deal with the continual presence of other people., again because of poor (or more likely, non-existent training before the trip). It is NOT up to other folks on the Trail to conform and behave according to your expectations. Quite the opposite is true. It is up to the owner to make sure their animal is properly trained and conditioned before they take it anywhere near the Trail.

Most of the dogs I've seen on the Trail (and I've seen hundreds) simply do not belong there. And I view this as an OWNER problem, not a dog problem. But dogs jumping on people is not "socialization" and dogs reacting poorly when having to deal with other hikers is not a "people" problem that can be cured by your desire to "train" hikers. In both cases, this is an OWNER problem, and the only way to rsolve it is if owners are responsible enough to not bring their dog on their hikes until the dog is trained suffieciently to behave correctly, and regrettably, the vast ammount of the time, this is not the case.
:clap :clap :clap

[CynJ]

The service dogs that work with epileptic people are amazing! And I know of two dogs personally that are trained to respond to severe diabetics as well.

There are all sorts of reasons why people have services dogs - as someone who works with people with disabilities for a living I have seen them all.

[smokymtnsteve]

Frieden---

I've read this whole thread, but haven't commented yet.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a beef with your desire that you "could train the people" to interact better with your pet.

Wrong.

It's the dog that needs training.

If you bring a dog on your hike, people will indeed approach him, will talk to him, will pet him. If the dog is at all skittish about these frequent contacts with strangers, and if he reacts badly, by getting agitated, by barking, by growling, by jumping on people, then he's not ready for the Trail yet, and he needs to go home. A Trail dog needs to be able to respond to its owner's voice command IMMEDIATELY and at all times, and just as important, he needs to able to deal with strange people without freaking out.

The three biggest problems with dogs on the Trail are owners who don't pay enough attention to their pet and who allow the dog to create problems; dogs who won't respond to voice commands, i.e. were never properly trained to do so; and dogs who can't deal with the continual presence of other people., again because of poor (or more likely, non-existent training before the trip). It is NOT up to other folks on the Trail to conform and behave according to your expectations. Quite the opposite is true. It is up to the owner to make sure their animal is properly trained and conditioned before they take it anywhere near the Trail.

Most of the dogs I've seen on the Trail (and I've seen hundreds) simply do not belong there. And I view this as an OWNER problem, not a dog problem. But dogs jumping on people is not "socialization" and dogs reacting poorly when having to deal with other hikers is not a "people" problem that can be cured by your desire to "train" hikers. In both cases, this is an OWNER problem, and the only way to rsolve it is if owners are responsible enough to not bring their dog on their hikes until the dog is trained suffieciently to behave correctly, and regrettably, the vast ammount of the time, this is not the case.


actually your wrong Jack,,,my dogs are my personal property,,,folks need to ask permission before they touch my personal property, U wouldn't expect someone to touch and use your personal property without permission would U?

So yes ..other folks need to be educated to leave other folks personal property alone,,

[The Old Fhart]

Smokymtnsteve-",,,my dogs are my personal property,,,"Then I guess we're all fortunate you won't be taking your team of dogs and sled on the A.T. :D

[SGT Rock]

actually your wrong Jack,,,my dogs are my personal property,,,folks need to ask permission before they touch my personal property, U wouldn't expect someone to touch and use your personal property without permission would U?

So yes ..other folks need to be educated to leave other folks personal property alone,,

Well in some ways I don't disagree. It is bad form to approach a dog to pet it without talking to the owner first. But then again, why, unless it is an absolute necessity, bring something on the trail that can be that unpredictable and dangerous to others? Well, unless you plain just don't give a **** about anyone or anything (like other critters that live in the forest) but yourself and your dog. :rolleyes:

[smokymtnsteve]

Then I guess we're all fortunate you won't be taking your team of dogs and sled on the A.T. :D

actually phart..Karen and I are thinking about hiking some on the AT this spring and yes we will bringing a small dog team but no sled ;)

and No I don't expect folks to come "playing" with our dogs without permission, these are all well trained animals, but yes we do have some that will bite :eek:

[SGT Rock]

actually phart..Karen and I are thinking about hiking some on the AT this spring and yes we will bringing a small dog team but no sled ;)

and No I don't expect folks to come "playing" with our dogs without permission, these are all well trained animals, but yes we do have some that will bite :eek:

I reckon I rest my case. :-?

[smokymtnsteve]

Well in some ways I don't disagree. It is bad form to approach a dog to pet it without talking to the owner first. But then again, why, unless it is an absolute necessity, bring something on the trail that can be that unpredictable and dangerous to others? Well, unless you plain just don't give a **** about anyone or anything (like other critters that live in the forest) but yourself and your dog. :rolleyes:

they are not unpredictable,,,they are very predictable,,,Moose and Taz will bite you, Gunive're will bite you (or me) if Karen tells him to or of if you make a "threatening" move toward her ;)

[SGT Rock]

they are not unpredictable,,,they are very predictable,,,Moose and Taz will bite you, Gunive're will bite you (or me) if Karen tells him to or of if you make a "threatening" move toward her ;)
So you predict that they will threaten others off a perceived threat. Just beautiful. Standard view of dog owners that we have to put up with the dogs crap no matter how much it is out of place. :rolleyes:

Let me know when you bring them and if I'm in the area I'll pack my gun - legally of course. That way when they come after me you can predict they will also get as good as they give. :p

[The Old Fhart]

Smokymntsteve-"actually phart..Karen and I are thinking about hiking some on the AT this spring and yes we will bringing a small dog team but no sled ;)

and No I don't expect folks to come "playing" with our dogs without permission, these are all well trained animals, but yes we do have some that will bite :eek: "
Smokymtnsteve-"they are not unpredictable,,,they are very predictable,,,Moose and Taz will bite you, Gunive're will bite you (or me) if Karen tells him to or of if you make a "threatening" move toward her " ;)
Smokymtnsteve-"well I spent time yesterday breaking up a dog fight,,,had to used a big shovel to do it as they were really going at each other......"
"One dog named TSAVO got kinda chewed up by a dog named MOOSE, actually ole Moose kicked Tsavos ass pretty good...now I'll have to watch Tsavo for infection, if his head swells up I'll start him on an anti-biotic...."Well, Steve, you've gotta be far more ignorant than everyone has given you credit for. Known vicious animals attacking or biting anyone will get you a healthy jail term for using a deadly weapon.

Oh, and don't forget your big ol' shovel, although it sounds like you've hit yourself in the head with it a few too many times! :D

[smokymtnsteve]

So you predict that they will threaten others off a perceived threat. Just beautiful. Standard view of dog owners that we have to put up with the dogs crap no matter how much it is out of place. :rolleyes:

Let me know when you bring them and if I'm in the area I'll pack my gun - legally of course. That way when they come after me you can predict they will also get as good as they give. :p


no...they will only act on a real threat. when told too. Just like U would with your gun (or would that be a rifle?? ;)

these dogs will ignore U,,, they know how to pass on the trail..they are trained to pass other dogs and people on the trail without stopping,

these dogs will be harnessed and on a gangline, one of us (ME) will be in front and the other (Karen) will be behind the team,

the dogs shouldn't have to put up with others people crap, like wanting to pet them without asking or trying to feed them junk.

[smokymtnsteve]

Oh, and don't forget your big ol' shovel, although it sounds like you've hit yourself in the head with it a few too many times! :D

big plastic snow shovel...U bang on top of the dog house with :datz

[SGT Rock]

no...they will only act on a real threat. when told too. Just like U would with your gun (or would that be a rifle?? ;)

these dogs will ignore U,,, they know how to pass on the trail..they are trained to pass other dogs and people on the trail without stopping,

these dogs will be harnessed and on a gangline, one of us (ME) will be in front and the other (Karen) will be behind the team,

the dogs shouldn't have to put up with others people crap, like wanting to pet them without asking or trying to feed them junk.

Well based on your description, I still feel this is a threat. And honestly , if my dog ever bit someone I would shoot her myself. But if you are that into your self and your dogs, well then whatever. There is no persuading someone that would feel so off center. :confused:

[smokymtnsteve]

no threat rock..all dogs will bite, even yours..

dogs growling, exposing teeth, are all warning signals, any dog will bite U ..pushed far enough,

[SGT Rock]

no threat rock..all dogs will bite, even yours..

dogs growling, exposing teeth, are all warning signals, any dog will bite U ..pushed far enough,

Exactly, so why bring them?

Answer: because you want to.

And why do you want to and make a big deal that they will bite: apparently the though gives you some sort of pleasure. Otherwise, if you really were concerned about the welfare of others, you wouldn't bring a pack of dogs in the first place. Apparently, by your own account, you occasionally have to use a shovel to bring them under control. And if that could happen without your prompting or control, how can you be certain it cannot happen to another person while on the trail? The honest answer, no matter how you want to spin it is you cannot.

Sort of sadistic if you think about it. Basically you have said "I will bring my dogs that will attack you if you touch them because they don't want to be touched and they will attack you if I tell them too." So what is the redeeming value in bringing them other than to challenge others to touch or screw with you or your dogs? I see none. And for a guy that always seemed sort of cool to other hikers, I find this sort of disingenuous on your part considering your nature.

[smokymtnsteve]

Tsavo is a yearling,,,a wild pup,(a teenager) if we get to come down we would bring older well-trained animals.

Tsavo tried to dominate Moose (an intact breeding male in the kennel) Moose gave Tsavo a few quick nicks around the head, but Moose is pretty good with people ...but he doesn't like to be played with much,,,he is a hard ,,,working animal,,,who enjoys a good trail. I've meet hikers like that too. Moose can really run, and is a good leader,


my point was ....folks shouldn't approach and play with other folks dogs without permission...

we got a dog here, Kiska, named after the aluetian island of wwII fame,,Kiska has a leg that has a sore spot from an old injury,,,before playing with Kiska one needs to know about the old injury and avoid hurting her, that is why U need to ask about petting/handling animals that U do not know.

[CynJ]

And honestly , if my dog ever bit someone I would shoot her myself.
I am hoping that you would take the full circumstances of why the dog bit someone before shooting her - if someone is breaking into your home or trying to harm one of your kids -you want that dog to bite someone. As a female hiker who often hikes alone with my dog - I would want my dog to protect me if someone tried to harm me. :)

Pet owners need to take responsiblity for their animals, and the general public needs to respect responsible pet owners. One of the biggest things I teach children (I used to run an animal shelter, and still do rescue work) is not to just run up to a strange dog, and to always ask the dogs owner if its ok to pet the dog. Some people will say no. That needs to be respected.

My particular dog is a big mush - she honestly loves everyone (well not my mother-in-law so much -but that might just be me projecting), and especially children. But I always warn parents about letting the kids near her that they will get big slobbery kisses.

[smokymtnsteve]

My friend Karen has a dog named Guni'vere...

Karen has lived and travled around AK for 35 years,
this is real wilderness up here ..with no police or help readily available,
Guni'vere is a highly intelligent well trained animal, you can pet him,,he is playful, he sleeps with us, however if U "bother" Karen he WILL warn U off,,and if U continue he will defend her, I see nothing wrong with this.

[SGT Rock]

Tsavo is a yearling,,,a wild pup,(a teenager) if we get to come down we would bring older well-trained animals.

Tsavo tried to dominate Moose (an intact breeding male in the kennel) Moose gave Tsavo a few quick nicks around the head, but Moose is pretty good with people ...but he doesn't like to be played with much,,,he is a hard ,,,working animal,,,who enjoys a good trail. I've meet hikers like that too. Moose can really run, and is a good leader,


my point was ....folks shouldn't approach and play with other folks dogs without permission...

we got a dog here, Kiska, named after the aluetian island of wwII fame,,Kiska has a leg that has a sore spot from an old injury,,,before playing with Kiska one needs to know about the old injury and avoid hurting her, that is why U need to ask about petting/handling animals that U do not know.

So now they are nothing to fear? Based on your earlier tales I find that hard to belive.

Again, I never disagreed with your assessment of your dogs and the need to ask to handle or touch them. That should always be first thought to anyone approaching a dog. But why do you want to bring them if you know they could be dangerous to others? Again, because you want to. And your post:


they are not unpredictable,,,they are very predictable,,,Moose and Taz will bite you, Gunive're will bite you (or me) if Karen tells him to or of if you make a "threatening" move toward her

or this:


and No I don't expect folks to come "playing" with our dogs without permission, these are all well trained animals, but yes we do have some that will bite

or this:


well I spent time yesterday breaking up a dog fight,,,had to used a big shovel to do it as they were really going at each other , then I hooked a team of doggies to a gang line and ran them 40 miles so I could soak in a Hot spring.


and the nip you say now, well back then:


last Feb. at 20 below zero F, I had two dogs get into a fight...one's neck got bit,,,of course it become infected,,,it had a lot of swelling ....so I lanced the site open and drained it and then made a soup,(as he couldn't swallow solids) out of chicken fat and ground meat, then got dressed went out into the dark and cold every 4 hours and put the soup down him with a turkey baster and and gave him an anti-biotic,,

So based on your descriptions then, your dogs will bite, bite on command, bite if they feel you make a "threatening move", bite if maybe you try to touch them, and you had to break them up with a shovel and it was some fight back then in your description. And then the wounds were life threatening.

So what if my 7 year old touches your dogs before either of us has a chance to stop him, I guess it will just be his bad luck you brought them along. I guess I should of trained that defenseless 7 year old better than to like dogs. Well he should have asked before your dog bit his hand or face. And I'm sure the line and your shovel will make it easier for you to get your dog off the child. What if it is someone elses kid you don't even know that comes up when your not looking? Are you really that set that you need your dogs that you are willing to risk all that?

Of course such a scene is avoidable, but you want me to change instead of just doping something simple - don't bring 'em.

How about if I said I was bringing five 12 year olds with knives that will cut you if they feel threatened or if I tell them to. Lets say in fact one cut another so bad the other day I had to treat him and then lance the infection? But I'll take them backpacking and keep them on a line together. Sounds like a recipe for disaster, but for a dog owner it is business as usual.

Naw never mind that. I would never inflict that on someone else no matter how poor taste it would be. I wish more dog owners would realize what they are doing to those around you.

[smokymtnsteve]

Parents should be in control of thier children at all times...

Parents should teach thier children not to approach dogs they do not know,

Jist liek the sign says there at Charlies Bunion

"CLOSELY SUPERVISE CHILDREN"

ps maybe I should use that shovel to shovel some **** :datz

[SGT Rock]

I am hoping that you would take the full circumstances of why the dog bit someone before shooting her - if someone is breaking into your home or trying to harm one of your kids -you want that dog to bite someone. As a female hiker who often hikes alone with my dog - I would want my dog to protect me if someone tried to harm me. :)

I would take it into consideration. But as we have seen in some threads, people sometimes feel "threatened" by people that it turns out later were totally harmeless. So how "threatened" are you before the dog attacks?



Pet owners need to take responsiblity for their animals, and the general public needs to respect responsible pet owners. One of the biggest things I teach children (I used to run an animal shelter, and still do rescue work) is not to just run up to a strange dog, and to always ask the dogs owner if its ok to pet the dog. Some people will say no. That needs to be respected.

My particular dog is a big mush - she honestly loves everyone (well not my mother-in-law so much -but that might just be me projecting), and especially children. But I always warn parents about letting the kids near her that they will get big slobbery kisses.

And I totally agree. One should always ask the person with the dog what it will do if you try to get close and/or pet it. Of course dogs have attacked at me while still on a leash as I did nothing more than walk on the trail past them. I guess I was threatening them by wearing a pack, or walking, or breathing, or whatever. Seems whenever that happens the owner says something to the effect "He doesn't normally do that".

And I don't expect Steve to attack me or break into my house. But if he were to pet my dog and she bit him for that, even without permission, I would still shoot her. I can't have a dog around people that would attack of no provocation.

[smokymtnsteve]

the resulting infection was life threatening to the DOG last winter,,,,the bite he recieved was not much to that,

[SGT Rock]

Parents should be in control of thier children at all times...

Parents should teach thier children not to approach dogs they do not know,

Jist liek the sign says there at Charlies Bunion

"CLOSELY SUPERVISE CHILDREN"

ps maybe I should use that shovel to shovel some **** :datz

Yes, but just like you cannot always predict what your dogs will do around people, I cannot always predict what my son will do around dogs. The difference is if my son screws up, your dog gets petted. If your dog screws up, someone gets hurt. Trails were created for people and their children, not for the dogs.

[smokymtnsteve]

how threatened is threatening??

once U tell a person to leave U alone,,,and then U back away,,if they keep coming ..they are very threatening.

[SGT Rock]

how threatened is threatening??

once U tell a person to leave U alone,,,and then U back away,,if they keep coming ..they are very threatening.

So if someone wants to pet your dog, exactly how much warning comes before the bite? How fast is the reaction, how about the deaf person that can't hear you? How about the todler that doesn't react as fast as you or I? :mad:

Nevermind

Whatever Steve. You cannot seeme to accept the fact that the person is not doing anything wrong or theatening and deserves whatever they get. I guess you really feel that way. I used to think higher of you.

[smokymtnsteve]

Yes, but just like you cannot always predict what your dogs will do around people, I cannot always predict what my son will do around dogs. The difference is if my son screws up, your dog gets petted. If your dog screws up, someone gets hurt. Trails were created for people and their children, not for the dogs.


well they make those harnesses and leashes for kids ;)

in dangerous areas such as backcountry mtn trails maybe U should keep the kid on a leash for thier own safety,,,,what if the kid ran off and got lost when U weren't looking??? that could be more dangerous than a dog.

unpredictable children should be kept on leashes. :eek:

[smokymtnsteve]

So if someone wants to pet your dog, exactly how much warning comes before the bite? How fast is the reaction, how about the deaf person that can't hear you? How about the todler that doesn't react as fast as you or I? :mad:

Nevermind

Whatever Steve. You cannot seeme to accept the fact that the person is not doing anything wrong or theatening and deserves whatever they get. I guess you really feel that way. I used to think higher of you.

so is it snowing yet there in tennysee??

[smokymtnsteve]

How about the todler that doesn't react as fast as you or I? :mlad:



i seriously doubt I would find a toddler threatening,,,,course those little buggers are just full of germs and stuff :bse

[CynJ]

So again I ask, for those people that have had negative interactions with dogs on the AT (or other parks/trails) -how many folks have taken the time to report the incident to law enforcement (rangers, polices, animal control, etc) or even to the ATC for tracking???

Without real statistical data to back up any of these allegations of the "large" amount of problem incidents with dogs then there will never be a way to correct it.

SGT - dogs have body language (albeit sometimes subtle) - and when a dog is going to bite out of aggression/fear there are signs. Its rarely a spontaneous thing.

I've also had rescue/shelter dogs out for walks and have had parents tell tell their children it was ok to pet the dog after I just specifically asked them not to. This is irresponsible on the part of the parents. Children need to be monitored around strange dogs- PERIOD.

Pet owners also need to be proactive in speaking to people approaching them/dog. Myra is a big dog and is very intimidating to some- we always talk to people before they are in leash range. And we will draw her up short so folks can pass. They even sell a leash that has two loops - one at the top regular and one down near the clip just for this purpose. Its handy and also you better control of your animal.

My bottom line is that dog incidents need to be reported, law enforcement needs to act on the reports, and this will start eliminating problem dogs from the trails; on the flip side responsible pet owners need to continue to maintain/control their animals properly and help educate others about how best to approach and positively interact with their pet, and irresponsible pet owners need to just leave their dogs at home.

[Lumberjack]

There is no such thing as an unprovoked attack. There is always a reason. Usually it is the Human that screwed up.

Unless your a licenced physician You are not qualified to say who is disabled and who is not...I have never met anyone with an official service animal that did not acually need one. They are too hard to find and train to be wasted.

[SGT Rock]

So again I ask, for those people that have had negative interactions with dogs on the AT (or other parks/trails) -how many folks have taken the time to report the incident to law enforcement (rangers, polices, animal control, etc) or even to the ATC for tracking???

Without real statistical data to back up any of these allegations of the "large" amount of problem incidents with dogs then there will never be a way to correct it.

SGT - dogs have body language (albeit sometimes subtle) - and when a dog is going to bite out of aggression/fear there are signs. Its rarely a spontaneous thing.

Again, I say that I understand that. But when the dog is aproaching you giving those signs, how exactly am I supposed to respond? Why can't dog owners just accept the fact that their dogs can do this to someone minding their own freaking buisness or doing something totally harmless? Or doing something that does not warant the response. We are all suposed to abide by the dog's norm when we didn't bring the dog or want the dog there in the first place. Why can't dog owners accept that having a dog is inherently a dangerous act to those around them? Why does it have to be the average hikers responsibility to be careful around your dog? It is unjust to expect the person that goes to the woods just to have fun has no interest in having to worry about your dogs, their signals, and the consequenses of their actions suddenly have to learn to deal with that whole areana of problems.


I've also had rescue/shelter dogs out for walks and have had parents tell tell their children it was ok to pet the dog after I just specifically asked them not to. This is irresponsible on the part of the parents. Children need to be monitored around strange dogs- PERIOD.
Sure they do, but if you have a dangerous dog, it is YOUR FAULT if it hurts someone. Not the person's fault.



Pet owners also need to be proactive in speaking to people approaching them/dog. Myra is a big dog and is very intimidating to some- we always talk to people before they are in leash range. And we will draw her up short so folks can pass. They even sell a leash that has two loops - one at the top regular and one down near the clip just for this purpose. Its handy and also you better control of your animal.

My bottom line is that dog incidents need to be reported, law enforcement needs to act on the reports, and this will start eliminating problem dogs from the trails; on the flip side responsible pet owners need to continue to maintain/control their animals properly and help educate others about how best to approach and positively interact with their pet, and irresponsible pet owners need to just leave their dogs at home.

That would be great except that it isn't easy on a 5 day hike where even when you get to a road it is 2 hours out of the way to see the apropriate law agency.

But I totally agree about leaving pets at home.

[SGT Rock]

There is no such thing as an unprovoked attack. There is always a reason. Usually it is the Human that screwed up.

I beg to differ. I have been attack and threatened for simply walking on a trail. I guess I screwed up by being there. Pat answer for the dog owner to excuse poor behavior by the animal. I was even told once the dog could "sense" I was a bad person so that is why it acted that way. Other hikers have similar experiences of being attacked or harassed by dogs for simply walking into town or on a trail. I guess we are all a bunch of dog provoking jerks. :mad:



Unless your a licenced physician You are not qualified to say who is disabled and who is not...I have never met anyone with an official service animal that did not acually need one. They are too hard to find and train to be wasted.

Nor have I, but apparently if my psychologist said I had problems with PTSD from the war, I could train my own service dog and call it one despite my lack of qualifications to do so.

[The Old Fhart]

Lumberjack-"There is no such thing as an unprovoked attack. There is always a reason."So I guess you never watch the news where there is always a story of an "unprovoked attack" where the dog was destroyed and many of the owners sued or jailed.

If you google you can find the following:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.7 million Americans - almost two per cent of the population - were bitten by dogs in 1994. One out of six required medical treatment. The American Humane Association calls dog bites a greater health problem for children in the US, than measles, mumps, and whooping cough combined, and points to data showing almost 70 percent of dog-bite victims are children under 15 years of age.

The Insurance Information Institute reported that claims related to dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowner’s liability claims in the US, with an average claim of $16,600. The fact that over half of the bites occur on the dog owner’s property has prompted some American insurers to take steps to limit their losses.So before you start spreading rumors, check your facts.

[D'Artagnan]

If a dog owner isn't willing to keep their dog on a short leash, they should leave them at home. It should not be incumbent on those of us who choose to walk without dogs to be in a defense mode to stave off an attack of an aggressive/startled/overly-protective dog or even the unwanted advances of a friendly dog. I disagree with Lumberjack's assertion that there is no such thing as an unwarranted attack. Dogs are reactionary animals based on their conditioning and training. You cannot expect to take a house dog or one that's entire existence has consisted of being in a backyard and put him in the woods and expect him to behave in the same manner when confronted with strangers in a foreign environment. It's just selfish of dog owners to put the onus of responsibility on those of us without dogs in tow. If I had had access to a handgun Saturday, the dog that was coming at me would no longer pose a threat to anyone. For that, I make no apologies.

[CynJ]

That would be great except that it isn't easy on a 5 day hike where even when you get to a road it is 2 hours out of the way to see the apropriate law agency.

But I totally agree about leaving pets at home.
That is why I also suggested that the ATC track these incidents -and it could be reported days after the incident. If a pattern develops, ie problems at one particular place, or with many complaints about the same person, then it would give law enforcement a way to pinpoint problem areas/people.

The problem with blanket "bans" is that they effect everyone and subject everyone to rules based upon a limited problem group of the overall population.

Here's an example - lets say there were a systemwide AT ban on dogs because of "incidents" - and lets say that we finally get data to look at and analyze and find that the majority of incidents (and I am using this as a totally made up example) occurr in a certain area of the trail in North Carolina and that the problem dogs/people are local day hikers/owners. Is it fair to ban my dog in Connecticut, who has never caused a problem, from hiking in Connecticut based upon the actions of those people in North Carolina?

I have a problem with blanket bans of all flavors - not just relating to pets. Whether is gun control, breed specific legislation, et cetera. I hate having rules inflicted upon me by the irresponsible actions of others.

I am not demeaning anyone's right to hike safely without fear of being attacked by a dog but I will stand up to being lumped with a group of irresponsible pet owners and will stand up to defend my right to enjoy the outdoors with my dog as a responsible pet owner.

With the way pet legislation is going pretty soon we might as well all just buy a bonsai kitten and be done with it as we won't be able to go anywhere or do anything with our pets.

[the goat]

there could never be a "blanket ban" on the AT.....too many different jurisdictions

[SGT Rock]

That is why I also suggested that the ATC track these incidents -and it could be reported days after the incident. If a pattern develops, ie problems at one particular place, or with many complaints about the same person, then it would give law enforcement a way to pinpoint problem areas/people.

The problem with blanket "bans" is that they effect everyone and subject everyone to rules based upon a limited problem group of the overall population.

Actually, based on my experience and that of other posters, the bad dogs are in the majority and the good dogs are in the minority. So using your logic, we could actually ban all dogs until someone proves that the majority can abide.

[CynJ]

So where is the data to back that?

[D'Artagnan]

Experience trumps data in my book any day. I don't really care what the statistics are. One unleashed dog on a public footpath is one too many.

[Lone Wolf]

It's pretty ***n simple. If you're gonna hike with a dog always keep it on a leash, when meeting people on the trail move well off the trail hold on to the dog and let people pass. Always stay out of shelters, shelter areas and official campsites, hostels, etc. Keep fido away from all water sources used by humans. Pick up it's sht too.

[SGT Rock]

So where is the data to back that?
Your right. I don't have data. But there are a lot of us that have these expereinces and there are too many to disregard the issue. The other flip side is I could ask you to also provide data on how many hikers with dogs follow all the rules? I bet you would even conceed that the majority would say they don't do it all the time. Do we need statistics on assult or rape before we make those a crime as well, or can those things be determined to be a detriment to a functional society and be outlawed off one incident? :(

So where is your data?

Nevermind. I can't imagine it exists. And I only imagine you answer will put it back as the problem of the non-dog hikers and dog hikers always seem to want to do. :mad:

[Lumberjack]

Just because the reason for an attack isnt apparent does not mean there isnt one. Dogs are territorial and pack hunters. They will defend themselves and their family whether it is anouther dog or a human.

The Idea of an unprovoked attack is nothing more then blame shifting and seldom is the dog given a chance to explain themselves. There is always a cause for the attack. That cause maybe either in the present or the past. If one or more hikers cross the path of a stray and react poorly, the dog will become "trained" to attack any human it comes across.

In the end Dogs like most animals are emotional creatures and act on their emotions and thier instincts whether they are based on the present or the past just as you react to them based on your experience with them.

I watch the news all the time and I have yet to see a dog get on camera and lie about its involvement. I have witnessed a case of a human threatening a dog and then claiming the attack was unprovoked....

Perhaps some of you need to take the time to study animal behavior.

[Lone Wolf]

Screw animal behavior. Keep your mutt away from folks trying to enjoy the trail. They don't belong.

[SGT Rock]

Just because the reason for an attack isnt apparent does not mean there isnt one. Dogs are territorial and pack hunters. They will defend themselves and their family whether it is anouther dog or a human.

Exactly. You just proved my point. So by their nature they can be violent in the norms of human behavior.



The Idea of an unprovoked attack is nothing more then blame shifting and seldom is the dog given a chance to explain themselves. There is always a cause for the attack. That cause maybe either in the present or the past. If one or more hikers cross the path of a stray and react poorly, the dog will become "trained" to attack any human it comes across.

And this I disagree with. To the human, they are doing nothing wrong and have no ill intent. The fact that the dog attacks off this is the dogs fault. Color it however you will, but the dog is the one that has an inappropriate response to the stimulus.



In the end Dogs like most animals are emotional creatures and act on their emotions and thier instincts whether they are based on the present or the past just as you react to them based on your experience with them.

Duh. So their violent actions are somehow still a human's fault by your logic? The only human at fault is the dog owner that introducs the animal to the situation and then fails to realize the cause and simple solution is to not bring them in the first place. See, that is a VERY easy course of action instead of expecting 240,000,000 Americans to suddenly understand your dog is a handgrenade with the pin pulled.


I watch the news all the time and I have yet to see a dog get on camera and lie about its involvement. I have witnessed a case of a human threatening a dog and then claiming the attack was unprovoked....

Sad that you assume that everyone attacked is lying. Too bad that the truth eludes you.




Perhaps some of you need to take the time to study animal behavior.

Why should I have to. It is the animal owner that should. And then study the interaction of the two and plan accordingly. Wait, as a dog owner I already have and taken the appropriate actions. Too bad others are unwilling to.

[The Old Fhart]

Lumberjack-"The Idea of an unprovoked attack is nothing more then blame shifting and seldom is the dog given a chance to explain themselves. "
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.7 million Americans - almost two per cent of the population - were bitten by dogs in 1994.So, Lumberjack, 4.7 million Americans have been "blame shifting"? I'd think after the first million bites, any person (even you) might see a pattern. :D

[D'Artagnan]

Most dogs are a reflection of their owner. If the owner is an a-hole you can be pretty sure the dog's one too. I'll bet Lumberjack's is a peach.

[Ender]

Just because the reason for an attack isnt apparent does not mean there isnt one...

I agree with this. Still doesn't mean the dog should be biting people. It should be trained not to bite people. But, it's true that we don't always know the reasons why dogs act the way they do, but the dog will always have a reason.

Still if a dog bites me, I'd be pretty PO'd. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep a dog on a leash while on the AT. Enough people hike that trail, enough who aren't comfortable around dogs, that it seems the prudent thing to do.

On the flip side though, during my '98 thru, I met a great dog who I honestly don't think needed or deserved being kept on a leash. It was the best behaved dog I've seen. Very very well trained.

Interesting topic.

[sherrill]

IMO, if you want your dog on the trail, keep it restrained. At all times. And don't let them in the shelters.

Case in point: On a section hike with my wife, we took a break at (the soon to be old) Roaring Fork shelter. This was over Labor Day and there were hardly any hikers around.

I walked up to the shelter, took off my pack, and set it on the bench outside. All of a sudden a Jack Russell terrior shot out of the shelter and started biting my leg. I beat him off with my hiking cane.

Turns out the owner was a woman taking a nap on the "blind" side of the shelter as you walk up.

As I was defending myself she started screaming "Why are you beating my dog??"

I love dogs and have two myself. They are not coming on the trail with me.

So, if you want to bring yours, keep 'em restraind and don't let them stay in the shelter.

[Lumberjack]

And you all prove my point.

And yes most bites are caused by poor behavior on the humans part but not always the one that gets bitten. We all have to suffer when one idiot mishandles or mistreats a dog. Its just a fact of life.

Rock, would you send an untrained recruit to a frontline position? If you choose to venture out from the civilised world then learning the behavior of the resident population is a smart thing to do. Expecting any wild animal to respect your view on civilised behavior is just plain ignorant. You claim to be an intellegent creature so take the responsibility for your part of any interaction. Their world is a violent life and death struggle and you are walking right into the middle of it.

Perhaps you will note that I havent excused the dog owners in any of this. I myself have hiked with several dogs and all were kept on leash. I no longer watch the news, I got tired of all the lying..... I much prefer the honesty of my dogs. Only a human would place the blame on a poor dumb innocent animal.

[CynJ]

Your right. I don't have data. But there are a lot of us that have these expereinces and there are too many to disregard the issue. The other flip side is I could ask you to also provide data on how many hikers with dogs follow all the rules? I bet you would even conceed that the majority would say they don't do it all the time. Do we need statistics on assult or rape before we make those a crime as well, or can those things be determined to be a detriment to a functional society and be outlawed off one incident? :(

So where is your data?

Nevermind. I can't imagine it exists. And I only imagine you answer will put it back as the problem of the non-dog hikers and dog hikers always seem to want to do. :mad:I have not said that it it a non-dog hikers problem.

In order to problem solve this to everyone's benefit (for both dog hikers & non-dog hikers to borrow your phrase) there needs to be some sort of data collected. And both dog hikers & non-dog hikers need to take responsiblity for reporting incidents.

If the trail belongs to everyone that includes both dog hikers & non-dog hikers and a solution beneficial to everyone needs to be found. It seems to me that getting rid of the problem dogs/owners on the trail would be the most efficient. Better data will pinpoint trouble areas/people requring more law enforcement vigilance and action.

Its a lot like politics - don't complain if you don't vote. Same rule applies here in a sense - don't complain if you don't report.

I am sensing on this thread though, a feeling that there are folks who don't want dogs on the trail good or bad. And I don't have an answer for that.




Do we need statistics on assult or rape before we make those a crime as well, or can those things be determined to be a detriment to a functional society and be outlawed off one incident?Do you even want to start down this path? If that's the case then all guns should be outlawed because I am sure that there have been one or two murders committed with one. Better outlaw knives for the same reason. Oh and someone ran over her husband with a car -better outlaw them as well. And it can go on and on and on.....

It seems to me that you would rather punish everyone based on the fact that something might happen versus punishing people for their own specific actions.

[Lone Wolf]

Outlaw forks. Makes folks fat.

[SGT Rock]

And you all prove my point.

No we don't. You wish we did, but you are missing the point based on the rest of your post.


And yes most bites are caused by poor behavior on the humans part but not always the one that gets bitten. We all have to suffer when one idiot mishandles or mistreats a dog. Its just a fact of life.

So if you are the one that insists dogs should go, by your logic, doesn't that make you an idiot?


Rock, would you send an untrained recruit to a frontline position? If you choose to venture out from the civilised world then learning the behavior of the resident population is a smart thing to do. Expecting any wild animal to respect your view on civilised behavior is just plain ignorant.

And again, I don't expect the animal to respect the human world. I understand quiet perfectly that THEY DON'T! And because of that, I wouldn't take them into a human world then blame the humans when they act within their nature. And since that nature is counter to what hikers normally must do, I submitt that they shouldn't be there. And we - the other hikers -shouldn't have to be the ones that change for the sake of the dogs. We are not at fault for the dogs actions.



You claim to be an intellegent creature so take the responsibility for your part of any interaction. Their world is a violent life and death struggle and you are walking right into the middle of it.

Actually, no their lives are not that. They are pets. They no longer hunt for food, someone feeds them. They no longer have to fight for teritorry, the owner provides that with a yard, apartment, or whatever. The fact is that dogs cannot comprehend that and will still act in a nature that counterproductive to relationships with humans without lots of training and control (and maybe not even then according to experts, read above articles) means that a responsible dog owner would keep them out of situations where their nature could cause them to harm humans who are acting in ways that are totally harmless to the dog.



Perhaps you will note that I havent excused the dog owners in any of this. I myself have hiked with several dogs and all were kept on leash. I no longer watch the news, I got tired of all the lying..... I much prefer the honesty of my dogs. Only a human would place the blame on a poor dumb innocent animal. Right. Again you assume everyone is lying about how they get attacked. Sad you have decided this-I guess I should ask you for your data on this since that is now the level dog owners want to use to defend the poor behavior of themselves and their animals.

And Frieden accused me of being stupid.

[SGT Rock]

Do you even want to start down this path? If that's the case then all guns should be outlawed because I am sure that there have been one or two murders committed with one. Better outlaw knives for the same reason. Oh and someone ran over her husband with a car -better outlaw them as well. And it can go on and on and on.....

It seems to me that you would rather punish everyone based on the fact that something might happen versus punishing people for their own specific actions.

Yes, and there are laws against bringing guns to many places because of this. Murder is already illegal. Knives above a certain length are considered weapons and are equally problimatic, but we don't have to wait until unough people are hurt with them to make them illegal.

But add to that, you are also talking about something that is a human's right by law. To equate this to a dogs right.... well we already went through that.

Anyway, so now you want to outlaw cars because someone has a problem with dogs on the trail. More power to you.

[The Old Fhart]

CynJ-"If the trail belongs to everyone that includes both dog hikers & non-dog hikers and a solution beneficial to everyone needs to be found."Your reasoning is faulty. The trail also belongs to horse owners and car owners but that doesn't mean that horses or cars should be allowed on the trail. The only logical conclusion you can come to is that dog OWNERS are allowed on the trail, not dog owners plus their dogs, to extrapolate that to mean anything else is just plain silly.


Lumberjack-"I no longer watch the news, I got tired of all the lying..... I much prefer the honesty of my dogs. Only a human would place the blame on a poor dumb innocent animal."Hiding your head in the sand isn't making the facts go away. I'll repeat this once more because you fail to get it; "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.7 million Americans - almost two per cent of the population - were bitten by dogs in 1994." For you to suggest that 4.7 million people are "lying" and you and the animal kingdom are the only ones who know "the truth" is ludicrous. Your attitude like the old saw "my dog doesn't bite", is a good reason the majority of hikers don't want to see dogs on the trail.

[Marta]

Fundamental truth: You have no control over the way anyone or anything besides yourself behaves.

Dog owners: Forget about requiring that the whole human race be educated to your exacting standard on how to treat your dog. It's not going to happen. You, dog owners, only have control over the way you act. Not that I have any control over this, but IMO the way you act needs to include having complete control over your dog 24/7. The best way to do that (as many previous entries in this thread have pointed out) is to keep your dog on your own property and not bring it out into shared space because (see principle above) you have no control over who is sharing the space with you and how they might act.

Me: I will leave your dog alone and expect you to keep him away from me and my stuff. If you fail in that responsibility, I will do anything I deem necessary to protect myself. Besides biting, there are many annoying things dogs can do to wear out their welcome--shaking water on people and their stuff, snitching food, peeing on people's tents...the list is endless and many of us do not think this is cute or acceptable.

BTW, I have been the victim of a dog attack. The dog (a German shepherd/wolf cross) was asleep and it woke suddenly when I was about six feet away from it. It became startled and lunged up and bit me. Did the dog have a reason for attacking me? Yes, the owners told me it had suffered abuse at the home from which they had rescued it so I'm sure a doggy psychologist could find reasons for the behavior. Does that make the attack okay? Hell, no.

[CynJ]

Yes, and there are laws against bringing guns to many places because of this. Murder is already illegal. Knives above a certain length are considered weapons and are equally problimatic, but we don't have to wait until unough people are hurt with them to make them illegal.

But add to that, you are also talking about something that is a human's right by law. To equate this to a dogs right.... well we already went through that.

Anyway, so now you want to outlaw cars because someone has a problem with dogs on the trail. More power to you.
But you are equating what one pet owner does with all pet owners. If every circumstance was ruled upon in that way no one would be allowed to own guns, knives, cars, et cetera because what one gun owner does they all will do.

I just don't like being branded as the bad guy because I want to take my dog hiking. I am a responsible pet owner and make responsible decisions to that end. I also don't want to be branded as only thinking of "dog hikers". I am trying to offer ideas to clean up the problem overall.

If folks aren't interested in fixing the problem then there isn't any reason to discuss this further and everyone can just disagree indefinitely.

[D'Artagnan]

It all really boils down to personal responsibility on the part of the dog owners. Personal responsibility is, in my humble opinion, something many people in this country have been drifting away from for years. Make more laws, blame someone else, it's a right-wing conspiracy, I was always picked last for the dodgeball team...whatever the whiny excuse. Exercise some friggin' common sense and personal responsibility and keep your dog on a leash or leave him at home. Problem solved.

[Spartan Hiker]

It all really boils down to personal responsibility on the part of the dog owners. Personal responsibility is, in my humble opinion, something many people in this country have been drifting away from for years. Make more laws, blame someone else, it's a right-wing conspiracy, I was always picked last for the dodgeball team...whatever the whiny excuse. Exercise some friggin' common sense and personal responsibility and keep your dog on a leash or leave him at home. Problem solved.X'actly....

[The Old Fhart]

CynJ-"If folks aren't interested in fixing the problem then there isn't any reason to discuss this further and everyone can just disagree indefinitely."Actually it seems that some folks are interested in creating problems for others by taking their untrained and unleashed dogs on the trail. The ATC has posted the following suggestions which you can also disagree with indefinitely.

Hiking with Dogs

Dogs are permitted along most of the Trail, but they impose additional responsibilities on hikers who bring them along. If you want to hike with your dog, be considerate of others (and your dog) by planning carefully, educating yourself about local regulations, and keeping your dog controlled at all times.

Regulations and restrictions
Dogs are NOT ALLOWED in three areas along the Trail:

Baxter State Park, Maine
Bear Mountain State Park Trailside Museum and Wildlife Center, New York—alternate road walk is available
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina
Leashes ARE REQUIRED on more than 40 percent of the Trail, including:

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Maryland (entire state)
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, West Virginia
Shenandoah National Park, Virginia
Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia
500+ miles of A.T. land administered by the National Park Service
In practice, it can be difficult to tell when you are on NPS-administered A.T. lands. We recommend dogs be leashed at all times, as a matter of courtesy to other hikers and to minimize stress to wildlife.

Trail ethics for dogs and their owners
People hiking with dogs should be aware of the impact of their animals on the Trail environment and their effect on the Trail experience of others.

Do not allow your pet to chase wildlife.
Leash your dog around water sources and in sensitive alpine areas.
Do not allow your dog to stand in springs or other sources of drinking water.
Be mindful of the rights of other hikers not to be bothered by even a friendly dog.
Bury your pet's waste as you would your own.
Take special measures at shelters. Leash your dog in the shelter area, and ask permission of other hikers before allowing your dog in a shelter. Be prepared to "tent out" when a shelter is crowded, and on rainy days.

If you're not willing to abide by common rules of decency and assume liability for your dog's actions at all times, you are just being selfish and showing absolute disrespect for all other hikers. From some of postings by SMS and others here, it appears they have an attitude that they deserve special consideration. To me this is a sign that they are not responsible dog owners and would only cause trouble on the trail.

[rickb]

If you're not willing to abide by common rules of decency and assume liability for your dog's actions at all times, you are just being selfish

I couldn't agree more.

What the poster failed to add was the corollary-- that if a Dog owner is abiding by the common rules of decency and assumes liability to his dog's actions at all time, then its those who still object who are being selfish.

There is a long standing history of outdoors people walking with thier dogs in this country. Its as much a part of our culture as guns are. Sargent Preston didn' head off into the Yukon alone you know.

In any event, I know of too many people who get thier blood presure raised over this, when they don't need to. Best to just chill.

[max patch]

if a Dog owner is abiding by the common rules of decency and assumes liability to his dog's actions at all time, then its those who still object who are being selfish.


But...a dogs presence in camp will certainly limit the amount of wildlife that other campers won't see. Maybe even the rare ruby throated yellow breasted hummingbird that you have been waiting to cross off your birding list would have paid the shelter a visit IF the dog hadn't been there. The dog owner -- unless we are talking about Bill Irwin or someone in similar circumstances -- who brings his animal into a shelter or camping area is the one being selfish.

[SGT Rock]

But...a dogs presence in camp will certainly limit the amount of wildlife that other campers won't see. Maybe even the rare ruby throated yellow breasted hummingbird that you have been waiting to cross off your birding list would have paid the shelter a visit IF the dog hadn't been there. The dog owner -- unless we are talking about Bill Irwin or someone in similar circumstances -- who brings his animal into a shelter or camping area is the one being selfish.


Absolutly Max. And there are other instanes of the leashed dog still creating hassles and attacking others. Too many instances of how even that protective measure can be less than sufficent. It is still amazing to me how another dog owner can make the leap of logic that we who are tired of this are somehow the problem. Guess how we got to this point? :mad:

[smokymtnsteve]

From some of postings by SMS and others here, it appears they have an attitude that they deserve special consideration. To me this is a sign that they are not responsible dog owners and would only cause trouble on the trail.

special consideration????

like what wanting other people to not molest your personal belongings.

[smokymtnsteve]

But...a dogs presence in camp will certainly limit the amount of wildlife that other campers won't see. Maybe even the rare ruby throated yellow breasted hummingbird that you have been waiting to cross off your birding list would have paid the shelter a visit IF the dog hadn't been there. The dog owner -- unless we are talking about Bill Irwin or someone in similar circumstances -- who brings his animal into a shelter or camping area is the one being selfish.


Other humans in camp firing up campstoves and rattling pots and pans, limit the amount of wildlife one my see...maybe we should ban humans.

[The Old Fhart]

Rickboudrie-"What the poster failed to add was the corollary-- that if a Dog owner is abiding by the common rules of decency and assumes liability to his dog's actions at all time, then its those who still object who are being selfish."Actually Rickboudrie, referring to "the poster" (i.e., me) fails to point out is I also said(post #205): "However I can think of at least 4 dogs that were well behaved and properly controlled by their owners that I enjoyed hiking with." Sorry you missed that.

[The Old Fhart]

SMS-"special consideration????
like what wanting other people to not molest your personal belongings." Actually, no. Other people don't want your personal belongings molesting them! :eek:

[rickb]

Good point Max P.

Were I not so stubborn, you might have got me to change my mind. I have to admit that you definitely go me thinking :-?

Perhaps the only shred of a rebuttal that I can offer is that camping areas are highly impacted places. People stay at them. Animals that are warry of dogs are also warry of people, right? Do the critters really care if there is one more preditor species in the area?

If one wants to see more wildlife, its better to camp 100 yards off into the woods.

By the way I got a good hummer on Katahdin's Table land once.

Ruby throated, of course. Its all we get in the east. It was attracted to a red ski hat. For the record I have never owned a dog.

[smokymtnsteve]

Actually, no. Other people don't want your personal belongings molesting them! :eek:


be careful sometimes my cook stove is HOT and will burn U....course if your not touching my cook stove then it will not burn U.

[rickb]

Note to OF: Glad to hear that you think people who object to well controlled dogs on the Trail are being selfish! We finally agree on something. :o

[The Old Fhart]

SMS-"be careful sometimes my cook stove is HOT and will burn U....course if your not touching my cook stove then it will not burn U."Although that is close to the most senseless thing you've posted (and you own a lot of them), if you control your stove like you do your dogs, the whole east coast may burn down. :D

[SGT Rock]

Note to OF: Glad to hear that you think people who object to well controlled dogs on the Trail are being selfish! We finally agree on something. :o


Yes, selfish in that I have seen people describe their dog as "well controlled" while it is obvious they are not. I think "well controlled" must be subjective. So I am selfsh in that I am tired of "well controlled" dogs being problems.

[Sly]

Along with the ATC guidelines, if a dog doesn't sit, heal, lay and stay on command, it's not properly trained and shouldn't be on the trail.

[rickb]

Along with the ATC guidelines, if a dog doesn't sit, heal, lay and stay on command, it's not properly trained and shouldn't be on the trail.

If you haven't yet, and ever have a chance to read Guy Waterman's Wilderness/Backwoods ethics books, be sure you flip tpo the section on dogs.

He has a code of ethics.

For both dog owners, and for those who aren't.

Agree or disagree, his books hold up, even though they were written over a decade ago.

The only thing that is real different, is the section in one of the books where he relates how hikers used to brag about how HEAVY thier pack was. :datz

[The Old Fhart]

SGT Rock-Quote:
Originally Posted by rickboudrie
Note to OF: Glad to hear that you think people who object to well controlled dogs on the Trail are being selfish! We finally agree on something.

Yes, selfish in that I have seen people describe their dog as "well controlled" while it is obvious they are not. I think "well controlled" must be subjective. So I am selfsh in that I am tired of "well controlled" dogs being problems.Whoa! Before you start arguing about what I said, look at what I ACTUALLY said. "However I can think of at least 4 dogs that were well behaved and properly controlled by their owners that I enjoyed hiking with." I never used the word "selfish" or said what other people might have thought, I just said I enjoyed hiking with them. It was also me who described their dogs as "well controlled", the owners never said (or had to say) that. It is entirely possible that there were other hikers who weren't as accustomed to dogs as I am and saw things differently. I'm still not convinced that because you can do something, that you SHOULD do something. The dogs I remember stood out because their owners were responsible and controlled their dogs, without beating them with a big shovel. :D

[Lumberjack]

Hiding your head in the sand isn't making the facts go away. I'll repeat this once more because you fail to get it; "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.7 million Americans - almost two per cent of the population - were bitten by dogs in 1994." For you to suggest that 4.7 million people are "lying" and you and the animal kingdom are the only ones who know "the truth" is ludicrous. Your attitude like the old saw "my dog doesn't bite", is a good reason the majority of hikers don't want to see dogs on the trail.

Sure Fhart, and almost all of them are preventable and the reasons for the bite can always be traced to a Human screw-up. When are you going to realise Dogs dont bite without reason? Only humans harm others for no cause. Like it or not Dog bites are caused by Ignorant owners and Idiots who have no clue how to handle a strange animal. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to clean the sand from your ears.

[The Old Fhart]

Lumberjack-"Like it or not Dog bites are caused by Ignorant owners and Idiots who have no clue how to handle a strange animal."That pretty much describes you and is all the more reason YOU shouldn't bring a dog on the trail. :D

[Lumberjack]

That pretty much describes you and is all the more reason YOU shouldn't bring a dog on the trail. :D

Your the reason I usually hike alone. :eek:

[The Old Fhart]

Lumberjack-"Your the reason I usually hike alone. :eek: Actually, it is "You're" and the rest of the hiking community really appreciates your leaving them alone! :D

[Oracle]

Me: I will leave your dog alone and expect you to keep him away from me and my stuff. If you fail in that responsibility, I will do anything I deem necessary to protect myself. Besides biting, there are many annoying things dogs can do to wear out their welcome--shaking water on people and their stuff, snitching food, peeing on people's tents...the list is endless and many of us do not think this is cute or acceptable.
I think this is a pretty good standard. By bringing a dog on the trail, you very well might be putting a potentially dangerous animal in an unfamiliar situation. That adds stress, and adding stress may make it do things it normally wouldn't do. You also put it around unfamiliar people who may react badly to it and it may react badly to them.

Think about it. Your dog starts messing with someone else's property, and that person takes action against your dog, shooing it, or even hitting it to make it leave their stuff alone. This may not be the best idea on their part, but it is reasonable that it may happen. Your dog responds by attacking that person and possibly others that try to help defend that person. Then, you're responsible for any injuries your dog causes to that person or persons, and they may well severely harm your dog in the process of defending themselves. Now you're in a situation where you're legally liable for harming others, they may need medical attention, and you may be looking at having to carry your dog to an area where it could get medical attention, which may be far away. Or your dog may end up dead.

Not a good situation. Best to leave the dogs at home.

[SGT Rock]

Sure Fhart, and almost all of them are preventable and the reasons for the bite can always be traced to a Human screw-up. When are you going to realise Dogs dont bite without reason? Only humans harm others for no cause. Like it or not Dog bites are caused by Ignorant owners and Idiots who have no clue how to handle a strange animal. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to clean the sand from your ears.

Sad.

How about this:


From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United States. (Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489-92; Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) In the latter study, which covered six years, the researchers made these findings:

There were 109 bite-related fatalities.
- 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.
- 81% of the attacks involved an unrestrained dog.
- 22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner's property.
- 59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner's property.
- 18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner's property.
- 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.
The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).
The authors pointed out that many breeds are involved in fatal attacks. The death rate from dog bite-related fatalities (18 deaths per year) in the 6-year study period remained relatively constant compared with the prior 10 years. The authors emphasized that "most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners." They recommend public education about dogs and dog ownership.

The Humane Society of the United States and the Center for Disease Control did another study of dog bite related fatalities (DBRF's) during 1995-1996. Here are some of their findings:

- At least 25 persons died as the result of dog attacks (11 in 1995 and 14 in 1996). However, tThe sources used for the study are thought to have underestimated the number of DBRF's by 26%.
- 20 (80%) occurred among children (three were up to one month old, one was aged 5 months, 10 were aged 1-4 years, and six were aged 5-11 years).
- 5 occurred among adults (ages 39, 60, 75, 81, and 86 years).
- Most (18 [72%]) DBRF's occurred among males.
- Of 23 deaths with sufficient information for classification, seven (30%) involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, five (22%) involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 11 (48%) involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property.
- Of the 25 deaths, nine (36%) involved one dog, nine (36%) involved two dogs, two (8%) involved three dogs, and five (20%) involved six to 11 dogs.
- All the attacks by unrestrained dogs off the owner's property involved more than one dog.
- Of the three deaths among neonates, all occurred on the dog owner's property and involved one dog and a sleeping child.
- Fatal attacks were reported from 14 states (California [four deaths]; Florida and Pennsylvania [three each]; Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, and South Dakota [two each]; and Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington [one each]).


"Dog Bite Law - Dangerous and Visions Dogs." Retrieved 10 Oct 2005 from http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

So I guess the sleeping kid must of been really asking for it.

Humans that hurt other humans usually have reasons (unlike what you claim) it is just that they may be bad ones. I guess either you can accept that dogs can hurt people for reasons that can be just as wrong as when humans do it, or you can continue to be deluded into Dog=good and People=bad.

[rickb]

Dang, that's about the same number of people who die each year from bee stings.

Lets ban them from the Trail. too.

[SGT Rock]

Dang, that's about the same number of people who die each year from bee stings.

Lets ban them from the Trail. too.

Great flippant remark. Seems that is becoming the next reserve of the dog defenders...

How many hikers are carrying bees?

Nevermind.

How many hikers are carrying hypothermia, lightning, or gunshots? They have no relevance to this. The data was presented to show a point about the motives of dogs in attacks. So a mauling or attack by a dog, though not presented is probably a lot more painfull than a bee sting to someone that isn't alergic. Must I look up statistics to counter the flippant bee remark? Geez, so I guess your point is still dog attacks on humans is a cross we must all suffer to make you dog hikers happy. And you tried to infer I was selfish.

[The Old Fhart]

SGT Rock-"How many hikers are carrying bees?"SCORE! point to SGT Rock!

[Lone Wolf]

Overall, dogs on the AT suck. End of ***ing thread. :cool:

[SGT Rock]

Overall, dogs on the AT suck. End of ***ing thread. :cool:
Your right LWolf. It seems that no matter what evidence is presented there is a disconnect from reality that prevents some from objective reasoning. The thread has been reduced to flippant remarks.

Anyone second LWolf's idea to close the thread?

[The Old Fhart]

I'd second it but I'm still trying to get the sand out of my ears! Plus I might be considered biased. :D

[SGT Rock]

Bahh. Leave the sand. Seems I read somewhere that before you tell someone to remove the moot from his eye you should remove the beam from your own.

Perhaps there is a beach that needs removing somewhere.

Anyway. Time to move on to what coffee tastes good in the morning, what tent is best for a solo hiker, and how many pairs of socks you need.

Stick a fork in this one and call it done.