I love dogs, but no longer have any real desire to see them on trails.
I always keep my dog on a leash, but she no longer hikes with me because of being attacked by unleashed dogs on multiple occasions. I now carry pepper spray (and I HATE adding weight ) because of the numerous times I've been growled at, lunged at, snapped at, etc. - all while hearing "They have never done that." or "They are scared of your hiking poles."
Hiking with a thru-couple, I watched as a very large German Shepherd latched onto the forearm of the male hiker, shaking it like a rag and doing some damage. The dog was off leash and the hiker sobbed as she tried to leash him, while yelling - "He is a rescue and has never done that!"
I've met some wonderful, well behaved dogs. I was recently in Colorado and spent two weeks hiking around another hiker and her Blue Heeler. The Blue Heeler was awesome and obeyed voice commands well. I think I may have had a "dog crush" by the time they got off trail.
At the end of the day, after years on trails with dogs, I would be fine if I did not have to deal with another one while hiking. Far more people CANNOT control them than CAN control them.
"He's never done that before" - not to make light of your injury Slo, but this always comes to mind - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59-wJhBpq8
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
I wonder if we may be dealing with regional differences in experience?
The vast majority of my hiking and backpacking (50+ years of it) has been in the Pacific NW and the Northeast US. I will not dispute that there are obnoxious dogs off leash that owners that have very poor to no control of. But, as for truly dangerous, as in dogs that will bite, not just obnoxiously friendly or aggressively barking dogs, I have not encountered any off leash on public land. I've certainly encountered scary dogs and threatening dogs. BUT, with one or maybe two exceptions noted in above comments, truly dangerous dogs, off leash are rare.
And, this takes me back to the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. Can we get all worked up about poorly behaved and poorly controlled dogs (people too for that matter) regardless of whether or not they are on leash? And, can we NOT default to either condemning dogs because they are off leash or suggesting that dogs on leash are okay, as long as the leash is short enough?
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
BUT, with one or maybe two exceptions noted in above comments, truly dangerous dogs, off leash are rare.
again, i will say that sadly this is not a true statement....
with my job that i just got outta of-----i've covered maybe 6 or 7 deaths due to off leashed dogs.....
and numerous serious maulings with off leashed dogs.....
Can we get all worked up about poorly behaved and poorly controlled dogs (people too for that matter) regardless of whether or not they are on leash
and yes, we should.......
bottom line, imo, dogs on a leash that are controlled by their owners are going to be safer all around than dogs off a leash.......(and yes, leash size matters).....
And how many of those were hikers on on public lands? And, what part of the country? You suggest that my observations are not true. Whereas I suggest my observations are absolutely true to my experience. So, why the discrepancy? What vague job has given you access to covering multiple people being killed by dogs when there are apparently only 30 to 50 people killed by dogs each year. So, statistically you are more than 100 times more likely to be killed by lightning in any given year than by a dog. Hmm. It appears to me that you are fanning the flames of fear without a lot of voracity to your tails?
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
TNhiker works for a news paper. Apparently there are a lot of vicious dogs in Tennessee. Of course, the number of people bitten by dogs which don't result in death is much greater. Hum, apparently 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs every year, 800,000 requiring medical attention. Most of the victims are children.
The number of people hiking with dogs has exploded over the last couple of years, especially this year. Many of these people are first time hikers with dogs who have never been out of the house. So, the chances of encountering an unrulily dog and clueless owner has gotten much greater.
An update on my condition: After 10 days or so, it's mostly healed up with no complications. Thankfully, the dog wasn't able to sink it's teeth too far into me.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
In the picture you posted, we can see the skin is clearly broken. So I'm just curious, did you have to take the rabies shots? and if so, who paid for them? Because they can be quite expensive.
I guess it depends on your definition of "truly dangerous". Any dog who is aggressive toward strangers is potentially dangerous and given the right circumstances that aggression can and will evolve into an attack. Size of the dog doesn't really matter. It doesn't have to be a Rottweiler. A Jack Russell or a Beagle intent on mayhem can mess you up.
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-oddsstatistically you are more than 100 times more likely to be killed by lightning in any given year than by a dog
27 is not 100 times greater than 30.
and chances are, because it's MA, the shots are all up to date for licensing purposes. I believe all cities and towns require licenses for dogs in MA and with that license, a current rabies vaccination (they are good for 3 years). The likelihood of a pet dog in MA having rabies is very low.
https://tinyurl.com/MyFDresults
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all the medicine and psychology in the world. ~Paul Dudley White
Once bitten you're never the same... every time you encounter a dog you'll be nervous, and its always the owners fault! Same **** happens at local township park and there are signs everywhere to always leash your dog.
I have low tolerance for idiot dog owners and their shenanigans...
...not to be incentive but does anyone have the right to shoot the dog if it attacks me or someone?
I have a low tolerance for idiots and their shenanigans period !!
Your first post welcome! I think if your firearm is legally carried you can protect yourself from a life threatening situation whether it's man or beast. But having said that there's alot to think about such as people around, houses, cars, ( ie, collateral damage). And a charging dog is going to be hard to hit. Probably the safest way would be to let the dog take leg or arm and shoot point blank
As to not miss and take out the threat.
Now protecting someone else with a firearm i don't know about that one. But if you have a firearm and someone is getting killed by something how do you not protect someone.
I'm sure the next person that dog bites will be assured the dog has had its shots too.
Actually this has happened before and it did not end well for the shooter who did shoot the two large unleashed dogs that attacked him but then their owner went beserk and the hiker wound up shooting him as well which resulted in the dog owners death.I do not know if the shooter is still in prison or not but the judge did not see it as self defense for some reason..................
That's a tough one....many pet owners regard their pet as a family member...not to be incentive but does anyone have the right to shoot the dog if it attacks me or someone?