Dogs on Quandary?

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
ChrisRoberts
Posts: 620
Joined: 7/17/2011
14ers:summits12 
13ers:summits10 

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by ChrisRoberts » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:01 pm

Slushslasher wrote:This is my aproach..I keep my dog off leash for as much time as I can. I think it's a great skill to practice with your dog. Its a good bonding experience to roam freely with your best friend. With that said, I know my 2 year old chocolate lab sure loves to play with other dogs and people. So I'm constantly scanning the area for both. If I see one I call him back before he has to make the decision to stay or play. I try to keep him within a 6 foot radius so he is constamtly engaged with me, and not necessarily the surroundings. When he behaves well he gets a treat. When he doesn't behave, he stays on his leash, even if we are clear.
I think this captures the true intent of the "under voice command" statement. Being under voice command shouldn't mean the owner has to call after their dog after it approaches humans/wildlife, it should mean such encounters are effectively eliminated due to the dog's training or a proactive owner. Of course that requires work, which a meaningful fraction of owners don't seem to be interested in.
Some rise, some fall, some climb to get to terrapin
NoCoChris: Now with less Colorado!
User avatar
SolarAlex
Posts: 529
Joined: 8/15/2011
14ers:summits35 ski13 winter5 
13ers:summits91 ski23 winter6 
Trip Reports (21)

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by SolarAlex » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:02 pm

who would have thought all of these badass 14er hikers are such cowards? :roll:

Scary to think that people like some of the posters on this thread spend their time fantasizing about how they would shoot hypothetical threatening dogs and their owners.
Vincit Qui Patitur
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8123
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers:summits51 winter16 
13ers:summits41 winter13 
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by Scott P » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:28 pm

SolarAlex wrote:who would have thought all of these badass 14er hikers are such cowards? :roll:

Scary to think that people like some of the posters on this thread spend their time fantasizing about how they would shoot hypothetical threatening dogs and their owners.
Actually it was the other way around. It was a dog owner who first brought up his fantasy of shooting someone else:

I have a dog (on or off leash is irrelevant in this scenario). I pass someone who is terrified of dogs and they feel threatened, so they take out a weapon and kill the dog. I feel threatened, because they just killed a dog. So I kill them.

The real solution to this "problem" is obvious and easy.

If there are no leash laws on a trail (or in a park) then hikers should expect that there might be dogs there. Even if off leash, dogs should be well behaved, not chase wildlife, and not be a danger to others. Owners should pick up after their dogs as well. This is all common sense. If a dog is non threatening and dogs are allowed, plus the owner keeps the dog under voice command and cleans after the dog then no one really has a right to tell the owner that his dog can't be there. You don't like dogs? Then go somewhere else where they aren't allowed or go where they are required to be on leash.

If there are leash laws in place, then hikers and other users should reasonably expect that all dogs there will be on a leash. No dog owner has the right to say that the rules don't apply to him or her and his or her dog and anyone else can go suck it. For people who don't follow the rules, you are the problem and the one who gives other dog owners a bad name. Just because you think that your dog doesn't have to be on a leash, even when required, doesn't mean that you can dictate that to all other users. It doesn't matter how well behaved you think your dog is or what ever reason you can come up with that the rules don't apply to you. This would be the same thing as someone going to a dog park and telling all owners that they can't have their dogs there. Not cool.
Last edited by Scott P on Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
Ptglhs
Posts: 1160
Joined: 1/6/2016
14ers:summits58 winter8 
13ers:summits73 winter3 
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by Ptglhs » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:36 pm

My scenario was a thought experiment brought up to point out how egregious it would be to kill something out of an irrational, unsubstantiated, fear. Human killing dog or other human. It wasn't a fantasy. The only fantasy I have on this thread is where people read and thoughtfully respond to what's written instead of hurling insults and threats.

I said it was nice to have dogs off leash in wilderness areas where it's permitted and was told I was a bad dog owner. I don't own dogs, but let's not let a fact or two get in the way of an internet forum post.

I said a dog should be allowed to be off leash if it listened to its humans and there was no danger and was told -on this thread, by people I've never met irl- that I must have aggressive dogs and that others would shoot/hurt them and implied they'd be willing to do the same to me.

I said people should agree to disagree and respect personal differences and was told I was being superior.

I said it would be better for a dog to die than a person and was told I was valuing both lives equally, or that I was mistreating a dog.

Its impossible to have a conversation and share ideas when people are more interested in hurling insults or not even paying attention to what someone else has said. For your own sakes I hope you pay more attention to route finding than you do to the people with whom you're conversing. :/
User avatar
Timothy
Posts: 149
Joined: 5/18/2015
14ers: List not added

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by Timothy » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:46 pm

SolarAlex wrote:who would have thought all of these badass 14er hikers are such cowards? :roll:

Scary to think that people like some of the posters on this thread spend their time fantasizing about how they would shoot hypothetical threatening dogs and their owners.
Anyone can accuse someone else of being anything, including a coward. I could accuse you of being a pinhead, what would that accomplish?

On another note, I have hiked many kilometers in Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany, and never, ever had a problem with aggressive dogs. In Colorado, I've been bitten on the leg, had a dog charge my 10 year old daughter, and quite a few other unpleasant encounters. The difference? Leashes. Nothing hypothetical about it. Why is that so difficult to understand? Maybe because, aww heck, the owners are self-absorbed jerks who think their dogs have more rights than other people? Just a wild guess. Call me a coward again if it makes you feel good about yourself, I don't care.
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃‎
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8123
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers:summits51 winter16 
13ers:summits41 winter13 
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by Scott P » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:40 pm

I said it was nice to have dogs off leash in wilderness areas where it's permitted and was told I was a bad dog owner.
Here's what you said:

One of the nicer things about hiking in wilderness areas is the lack of surveillance and nit picking from others. I prefer to have dogs with me off leash.

I took this to mean that you were going to have dogs with you off leash in the wilderness regardless of the law, but re-reading it you didn't specially say that. Although I read it that way, if you didn't mean it that way, I apologize and will give you the benefit of the doubt by editing my post (already edited).

Owners that don't obey the rules however, are the problem (see above). Likewise, people should expect the possibility of running into an unleashed dog in areas that they are allowed.

=========================================================================================

As for myself, I have had many bad experiences with dogs, and many good ones as well. It's almost always the owner that makes the difference.

A non-aggressive dog isn't always a good dog though. Just because no one has complained to you, don't mean that your dog is always well behaved. In person, most people (luckily) are non-confrontational.

Once on Belford, my three year old son and I were eating lunch on the trail when this dog comes running up the trail jumps on my son and eats his sandwich. The dog wasn't really a danger, but that is certainly not under voice command. The owner comes walking up the trail and said nothing! No apology; he just walked on by. What a douche.

A few years ago I was hiking up a trail in the Flat Tops and some aggressive dog come barking at me and bearing it's teeth. The owner was there saying "throw down your stick" and I was thinking "screw you; I'm not putting down my stick". The owner came and restrained his dog, but was there yelling at me saying his dog was harmless, but afraid of hiking sticks. Those kind of dogs should never be off leash on a trail. He's lucky I'm a nice guy.

While hiking Mount Riley near Haines Alaska, we just narrowly missed being attached by an extremely aggressive dog. By narrowly missed, I mean the dog saw someone else first and attacked her before us. She was in bad shape. Being an adult though, she survived (but certainly had to have a lot of stitches), but if it had attacked on of the kids, it may have been worse.

Of course the list goes on and on, but usually it's just an annoying unleashed dog barking at people or chasing squirrels, marmots, etc. Some owners even say things like "go get 'im boy" and encourage their dog to chase animals. Such things don't warrant a fight or violence, but such dogs don't belong in the mountains, especially off leash.

Then again I have pet many a friendly and well behaved dog on the trail as well.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
nomad
Posts: 183
Joined: 12/27/2006
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (1)

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by nomad » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:00 pm

I don't understand why a dog owner (which I am), can't have enough common courtesy and respect for others to leash their dogs. Common sense.
" The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war"
Recon 1st inf. Div.
User avatar
LURE
Posts: 1203
Joined: 6/28/2011
14ers:summits32 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by LURE » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:24 pm

Ptglhs wrote:My scenario was a thought experiment brought up to point out how egregious it would be to kill something out of an irrational, unsubstantiated, fear. Human killing dog or other human. It wasn't a fantasy. The only fantasy I have on this thread is where people read and thoughtfully respond to what's written instead of hurling insults and threats.
I just hope people (I'm not saying you) can have the intellectual rationale to realize people on here talking about shooting dogs are not living day by day thinking about their opportunity to kill someones pet, or are so scared that they feel the need to always be looking for the next animal to unload a firearm on.

It's very simple, if someones unleashed dog physically threatens me to the point where I'm actually concerned about physical bodily injury, yes I will absolutely use a firearm on that animal, again, without much hesitation. That's not a situation of irrational or unsubstantiated fear. I tried to make the point early on that some people carry firearms in the woods for self defense and what a shame it would be for something like that to happen because someone didn't have control of their animal. My points in here have been to the effect of making a case for responsible pet ownership in the woods, never a fantasy of killing animals, or god forbid, peoples adored pets.

I think the biggest fear of most responsible gun owners is the idea of actually having to use their weapon in self defense, but in a self defense situation it would be better than the alternative. I'm not trying to allow an aggressive animal tackle me to the ground and start ripping at me, however unlikely that situation may be. I don't go out into that woods with that fear in my brain, I'm just simply stating what I would do in that situation. If pet owners don't like that, then they should be able to rest assured they have a well behaved animal or have taken the measures to make sure their animal won't do something like that. I do love dogs, quite a bit honestly.
User avatar
brech
Posts: 61
Joined: 8/9/2009
14ers:summits32 ski4 winter1 
13ers:summits19 ski5 winter1 
Trip Reports (5)

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by brech » Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:42 pm

Like all things in the mountains they are becoming much more crowded with people and dogs which leads to higher chances of an incident. I don't think I've ever seen a case where a dog become a threat to the degree someone should consider shooting it on the trail. My wife gave me a Siberian Husky puppy almost 4 years ago so I wouldn't be going in the mountains alone.
1.) We go to less crowded places all seasons - 12 and 13ers. We hiked Parnassus and Bard a couple of weeks ago and saw 1 person no problem there. We did Huron last year but took Lulu gulch to avoid the crowds going up 3 13ers no company.
2.) We get early starts so we only have to deal with more folks on the way down.
3.) On the trail I use a hands free joring lead, we we pass other people or dogs I have Niko sit and stay, because I realize some folks might be uncomfortable with a large dog. This is more because of my concern for him than you though :)
4.) Going across talus or when skiing an open bowl he is off lease, too dangerous trying to climb even class 2 talus with a lead either he jumps and gets pulled back or pulls me and could cause a fall. The powder is just too fun for both of us
5.) Coming out always on a lead and at heal quite a bit, on skis we like ski-joring and can get going pretty good but I always make him slow or stop when passing others.

Dogs are great wilderness partners, for their sake keep to places and practices so all have fun. If you ever pull a gun on my dog you'll probably have to shoot me first. I would not take him on Quandary east ridge on a weekend too crowded for both of us, might do Fletcher though. I also would not take him on anything generally above class 2+ out of concern for him getting into something that might be a problem for him
Not sure why people think they have more god given right to enjoy the planet than the dogs anyway.
User avatar
LURE
Posts: 1203
Joined: 6/28/2011
14ers:summits32 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by LURE » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:03 pm

brech wrote: If you ever pull a gun on my dog you'll probably have to shoot me first. [...] Not sure why people think they have more god given right to enjoy the planet than the dogs anyway.
I was enjoying your comments alluding to your responsible dog ownership until these two which I feel somewhat undermined everything you said.

I'm not sure anyone in here thinks they have more of a god given right to enjoy the outdoors over dogs. I don't know where people keep coming up with these crazy assumptions. People do have the right to not have their enjoyment impeded by irresponsible dog ownership, so do the wildlife in wilderness areas.
User avatar
TallGrass
Posts: 2329
Joined: 6/29/2012
14ers: List not added
13ers:summits26 

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by TallGrass » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:59 pm

Once on Belford, my three year old son and I were eating lunch on the trail when this dog comes running up the trail jumps on my son and eats his sandwich. ... No apology; he just walked on by. ... On[e] sheep dog wanted to rip my five year old son apart
versus another's
If you ever pull a gun on my dog you'll probably have to shoot me first.
As a dog lover, I'll point out that if you think dog owners are protective, try parents.

"Who is most at risk for dog bites? Children. Among children, the rate of dog-bite–related injuries is highest for those 5 to 9 years old. Children are more likely than adults to receive medical attention for dog bites."
The CDC also says both "Approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year in the United States. Almost 1 out of 5 bites becomes infected. Don't be a victim." and "Dogs provide many health and social benefits. Most of the approximately 55 million dogs in the United States never bite or kill humans."
The bites/dogs comes to about 8% or 1-in-12, and most of us have met more than a dozen dogs.
https://www.cdc.gov/features/dog-bite-p ... index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

Image
Image
http://rebelem.com/myths-management-dog-bites/

Costs to dog owners can include:
* $,$$$ in medical bills. Due to rabies and other concerns, many first or urgent care facilities won't admit dog bite victims saying they need to go to the ER which will have it's bill and often an additional ER doc bill.
* Surgery and follow up care
* Medications
* Lost income
* Mandatory kenneling at animal control or a vet (no "home" kenneling) at owner's expense
* Designation ("dangerous", "vicious") which if still allowed to be kept in the city may require a full enclosure (sides and top) for the dog to be kept in (typical backyard fence or electronic invisible fences insufficient)
* Paying to put it to sleep if it bites a second time or housing it outside city limits
* Increased premiums for home owners insurance
* Fines and legal expenses. Ask your local animal control officer how often an owner says "they've never done that before" when responding to a bite incident

Dogs can also freak out at weird things they've never seen before like trekking poles, ice axes, other dogs, mosquito head nets, helmets, anything making noise as you hike (jingles and clonks), anything covering your face like shades, buffs, sun hats with side flaps, and more.

Image

So do smaller dogs have less risk? Well, they're easier prey for other dogs, coyotes, big cats, and even raptors who will swoop down from high vantage points to catch foxes then pull up to carry them away from the face for a ways then drop them on the rocks to... facilitate feeding.

I hope most here have the 10 E's and first aid for themselves, but also for their dog as well as the means to carry it out should it get injured, fatigued, or come down with AMS (there's a TR here about that happening to one of two Boston Terriers). Remember that if bloody pads, protective parents who might bear spray an approaching dog, porcupines, or giardia happen, SAR rescues humans, not "property."
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3010
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers:summits58 
13ers:summits82 winter1 
Trip Reports (1)

Re: Dogs on Quandary?

Post by highpilgrim » Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:54 pm

TallGrass wrote:So do smaller dogs have less risk? Well, they're easier prey for other dogs, coyotes, big cats, and even raptors who will swoop down from high vantage points to catch foxes then pull up to carry them away from the face for a ways then drop them on the rocks to... facilitate feeding.
You are so brilliant, I'd have to wear shades to look at you, I'm sure.

Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
Post Reply