Is this just bad luck with aggressive dogs or is this normal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan

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

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

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

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

doggies taste so good with black bean sauce … yuuum …

do aggressive dogs taste better?

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

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

Or you could just keep him on a leash.

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

Or you could just keep him on a leash.

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

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

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

*they* are THE problem.

Spend some money, train your dog.

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

Look up the dogs I referenced. I will give $100 cash to anyone with the balls to spray ammonia, pepper spray or even a lit flamethrower at any of the three described dogs. Internet Heros may apply.

Heck, I'll even send flowers to the funeral. Because I just care that much.

Fellas, way more heat than light in the latter stages of this thread. If you don't quit, I'm sending Cerberus to eat your house.

"Look up the dogs I referenced. I will give $100 cash to anyone with the balls to spray ammonia, pepper spray or even a lit flamethrower at any of the three described dogs. Internet Heros may apply."

Yeah, I know what they are. I'm one of the dog nuts. Keep that cash in your pocket while hiking. If you think people are going to roll over and play dead if your dogs act aggressively due to the intimidation from their size and looks, you haven't thought it through. In fact, your dogs are probably MORE likely to get sprayed because of that. That and your "I dare you" attitude. Walking with 3 large dogs (a pack in this case) that you can't control and don't care? A lawsuit waiting to happen. Or worse. Much worse.

people who are threatening with their dogs online do realize that if something were to happen, lawyers would have a field day with some of these posts … showing all the aggressive intent and all

if i had a vicious dog, i wouldnt go threatening online about it …

of course id turn it into a tasty meal ;)

Erik, I know nothing of the dogs you say you have. If I ran into something of that stripe on the trail, I'd be inclined like previous posters and take appropriate action, up to and including taking a big as_ rock or whatever and start with a mouth or head shot, not to wound, but to kill or maime (sp) at the least. I've had dogs (Dobies) in the past and would very embarrassed at the least if I acted as you say you do or would. Other dogs I would tolerate, just not very aggressive dogs.
Duane

As a dog owner, the turn of this thread is distressing and I've stayed out of it because the argument over lethal vs. non-lethal force on dogs seems to have gone out of the common sense realm and into the crazy realm. But Erik and his comment about his big dogs is bothersome to me. You don't get a pass on controlling your dogs, following leash laws, and being polite to other hikers just because your dogs are large. If you can't follow the law and do your job as a dog owner, then you have no business taking them out on trails with you. You're exactly the type of dog owner (with attitude, no less) that causes problems that result in closures of trails to dogs entirely. I absolutely expect other dog owners to have complete control over their dogs and to have them leashed if the law requires it and to keep their dogs away from myself and my own dog. If your dogs pull and that makes it dangerous to take them on a leash, then you owe it to them and to everyone else to train them properly to not pull or to leave them home since you can't control them. With the size of your dogs and your unwillingness to keep them under your physical control, you are creating the very circumstances that may result in someone using lethal force on one of your dogs and what's a shame is that will be entirely your fault and not the fault of the dog since clearly you can't be bothered to train them properly.

I think we know why there are leash and control laws…

Your comments are showing you as a bad owner, Erik. You happily admit that you can't control your dogs, they pull you along, and you think it is something to be proud of?
I had a Rhodesian Ridgeback, and it would walk by my side on a leash without pulling. Simple training.

I wonder if any of the people advocating shanking fluffy the golden retriever because she *gasp* barked at you have ever heard the expression that fear is an acronym for False Events Appear Real?

In the hopes of introducing a little sanity, I did a little research last night.

What it all boils down to is that the next human you pass on the trail is between 500 and a 1000 times more likely to kill you than a dog.

I also was unable to find a single instance of a fatal dog attack in the backcountry at any time in the past 20 years, but also found numerous instances of hikers being murdered by humans.

Many have made the arguement that you, as non dog people, don't have any way of knowing the dogs intent, and that justifies pulling out a deadly weapon and trying to kill the animal.

Of course, you also have no way of knowing the intent of humans you meet on the trail eithier. In fact, dogs are much better at communicationg intent – they bark, growl, bare their teeth, etc. hwereas a human that intends you harm will often engage in deciet (hey kids, want the candy?) to get you to drop your guard.

So, by your own logic, when approached by an animal that is 500 times more likely to KILL you than a dog, an animal with unknown intentions, and animal that is capable of far, far more cunnning and dangerous actions, you should be pulling out your knife and trying to stab that animal too in order "to protect yourself". Yet you don't. Why?

Simple: Hysteria, Fear, and Ignorance.

You are overestimnating and overreacting to a minor threat to your well being and ignoring a much more real and likely threat. The TRUTH, once you get beyond your INGORANCE and overblown FEAR, is that the odds of you getting seriously injured by a dog pale in comparison to the dangers you face in a daily basis just driving down to work.

Even worse, you are advocating actions that will only create more, and much bigger problems.

All I can say is that if you really are concerned about your saftey, please don't go around trying to shank sparky because he is running over to say hi, nothing good can come of it.

A friend who is a state park ranger said the only time she was physically attacked was by an owner who had an off leash dog and wouldn't leash it. Not attacked by drug dealers and growers, drunk drivers, poachers and others criminals she had confronted and arrested.

Apparently tensions run high on both sides in regards to dogs. It would seem good sense
to be moderate in approach in dealing with dog activity. In the end what is needed is
owner education and not everyone learns by "being taught a lesson".

I do admit throwing rocks at a dog that was snarling and snapping at my toddler. And getting into chest bumping and shouting with the angry owner.

Personally if my dog were a real threat to someone, I would like it to be pepper sprayed.

backpacker’s law (pdf)

The dog question is interesting, Dave, while I admire your fondness for dogs, I believe you just made up your claims out of thin air, the 1000 to one or whatever, ie, they are not linked to reality. The question properly put would be: what is the actual incidence of backcountry dog bites. Not how many dogs kill people vs how many people kill people. I looked briefly for such stats and found none. When learning this, you’d be able to cite actual sources for the data. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the incidence of dog bites are FAR higher than the incidents resulting in murder by another human. I personally don’t fear getting killed by a dog, but if a dog attacked (attacked, note, not barked), I’d certainly consider that the end of the discussion on the dog’s rights, and an excellent reason for carrying a good knife. But I’ve never been attacked by a dog, nor do I expect to be. The vast majority of dogs I see backpacking are excellent creatures, outstanding. I’m going to guess the actual problem is not generally real backpacking, but those spots that are more hike in campsites where non-backpackers tend to go.

Matthew Edwards has the right idea, though sadly what he’s talking about requires becoming a person like him, but that’s what I’d strive for too. I came across a woman with her dog hiking and, like Matthew, started communicating directly to the dog, which was one of the most intelligent dogs I’ve ever seen in my urban environment. Urban dogs strike me as being much worse in general than rural dogs, they don’t get the same experiences. She was amazed that the dog didn’t bark at me, and actually after a few moments, let me pet it. Same idea as what Matthew is talking about.

Now for people who insist on backpacking with a dog that is unable to grasp the situation and act accordingly, they really need to stop doing that, if your dog is stupid and can’t handle complex situations without freaking out, then stop bringing it with you. And dogs, like people, are stupid or smart, and have good or bad judgement. That stuff about it being the owners only is nonsense as far as I’m concerned, a smart dog is smart, a dumb one is dumb, that’s not on the owner. Sometimes dog nuttery goes too far, I love smart dogs, some of the best creatures out there. Dumb dogs, not so much.

The pdf above, which seems to have been assembled primarily for AT backpackers seems to be general enough to give a proper idea.

The dog section is pretty clear, the owner is liable for the actions of the dog. The assaultee is permitted to defend themselves against dog attack using the amount of force required to do so. Since if a dog is lunging at you and about to bite, that is not the best moment to take careful consideration of the feelings of the dog owner, who has already failed in their legal responsibility as a dog owner.

I want to believe the guy upthread with three large dogs he is unable to restrain or control is joking, if not, that is why dogs are banned from areas, so congratulations on being the exact source of the problem.

I also have no dog in this, though I have always wanted to go backpacking with a dog, so I appreciate the emotion on it. However, I also have a friend who has 2 pit bulls, incredibly well trained, but I’ve seen their training fail when they got confused. Not a good feeling to see a dog get confused, and dogs aren’t nearly as smart as we want to think, instincts are closer to the surface than with humans.

Certain threads seem to predictably go screwy: gun vs bear; wilderness permits versus commando camping; dog vs human. Feelings run high, and beliefs differ and facts don't matter much.

I teach my gradeschoolers to notice how people argue over beliefs (none us can ignore weighing in on abortion, marriage equality, or climate change) while if someone gets their facts wrong, mostly we can ignore it* (if someone claims the sky is purple or they saw a unicorn yesterday, we change the topic but quick).

*but I'll admit to going off on someone claiming iron is a insulator and fat isn't when posting after having two beers.

Back to gradeschoolers: Before speaking, Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind? If not, don't say it.

Animals are not four legged humans no matter how much animal nuts try to convince people. Animals are unpredictable and they don't know the civil mores or the law. They can not be reasoned with. One has no way of communicating anything to a dog other than submission or dominance and threats. Comparing them to people is a false equivalent , as false as they come, if not a total strawman.
the real threat from dogs is not so much being killed by them but being bitten and seriously mauled. BUT and this is a BIG BUT children can be killed and if they get mauled its a serious,serious injury.
Most people are not dumb, the over whelming number of unleashed dogs I run into on the trail are not simply saying "hi" they bare their teeth, snap and growl. No animal in the animal kingdom including man is confused about the message the dog is sending them.
I had dogs and know how to act to stop the dog from actually attacking ( but its never a certainty, again animals can be unpredictable ). But why in the hell should I even have been put in that situation? Even if the threat was a bluff from yet another "good" dog its rude beyond all measure to subject me to that. Want to compare that to a person now? What if I stopped you on the trail and with feet apart chest out and held my trekking poles ready to hit you over the head yelling "turn around or else!" and then demanded that you talk me down and prove you are not a threat to me or my hiking partners. Thats the equivalent of what many dogs owners do to people.
The most annoying thing of all is the same pattern plays out with unleashed dogs over and over again.
It goes like this:
-hiker walking silently enjoying nature,
-dos runs out ahead of you out of the bushes.
-dog usually surprised starts growling and snapping and barking furiously.
-Now I have to stop what I was doing and see if the dog will calm down or if I have to start being aggressive and dominate to scare it away.
-the owners 5 minutes or much more behind finally gets close
-the dog hearing its owner usually relaxes and its tail starts waving it demeanor changes now that if feels safer.
-the dog owner sees me and their now happy friendly tail waving dog assuming I must have been happy to meet their perfect dog on such a fine day.
-then they see that Im not pleased at all and maybe ill say something or just shake my head in disgust.
-the dog owner oblivious to what happened won't believe it and writes me off as another "dog hater".
-dog owner never changes their ways.
This is what happens 99% of the time I come upon a dog in the NH Whites.
Was I in any real serious danger? Probably not. But why, why, why, is this acceptable ? I would be embarrassed and ashamed if I did that to other people with my dog. And if a hiker is with their children the stakes go WAY high for those people. I can't even be mad at a father who felt like kicking and injuring my dog if my dog ran after their children growing and snapping. Hikers with unleashed dogs are animal abusers at worse neglectful and inconsiderate at best.

Excellent title added to the thread replies.

Just for the hysterics with big rocks, knives and (presumably titanium) machine guns, I just mail-ordered three more Presa Canarios from the Supermax in Crescent City. Of course, I cannot reasonably be expected to control such animals, but I will train them to attack the scent of Cuben fiber…and fear. It's your responsibility not to annoy my pets as long as we're still in America and my tax dollars paid for this park!

After releasing the now-six imaginary dogs on the PCT this next summer, I will increase the bounty to $1000.00 for each of you gnarly-outdoorsmen who demonstrate the fortitude to do what you claim you will when Cerberus, Sanguinus, Fangora and the three meaner ones (Newt, Osama and Periwinkle) approach. By the way, neither Tosa nor Dogos Canarios bark, so be sure to get down their level to make friends.

I also have titanium sporks and gold fillings for sale. We call these "deadfall".

Oh, and since my six dogs don't stay near when I leave them off-leash, I tend to encounter other people's dogs on trail. My practice is always to talk to the dog. I do this with horses, mules and llamas, too. Good practice in my experience.

The simplest thing for you, and safest thing for your dog and other hikers, is to either keep them on leash, or put a muzzle on them. A muzzle not only stops them from biting anyone or anything, but also stops them from eating stuff that's not good for them. Example: cooked chicken bones, chocolate, etc…A muzzle also makes them less threatening to other people. It's a win-win-win solution.

The muzzle would be good for an aggressive dog, but a leash keeps dogs from jumping on people. And many dogs are quite friendly and don't bite, but don't think twice about jumping up on a stranger. What they're trying to do is get up to your face to "meet" you, but many people see it as an act of aggression, and it's simply annoying. My dog, unfortunately, is a jumper and I haven't yet been able to enlist someone in a "Marley and Me" moment to make him stop. I keep him leashed any time there are other people around, whether the law requires I do so or not. I don't want him scaring anyone, or accidentally scratching them.