[Dante]

I'd be interested in hearing peoples' opinions about dogs in the woods. I am personally anti dogs in the woods. I've been charged by a dog--ears laid back and teeth bared--only to have the owner tell me it's really a good dog after calling it off. That was at Spectacle lake. That was my worst experience, but I've seen dogs far from owners on several occasions. It kind of spoils the wilderness experience. On the other hand, my mother-in-law loves to hike with her dog. She just doesn't understand how it might diminish other hikers' experience. MtnGoat replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm anti idiot, not anti dog. Far too many people and dogs enjoy the experience for me to want to keep them from doing so because of a few idiots. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- catwoman replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- same here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dante replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have as much of a problem if the dog is within the owners sight and control. The idiot thing applies broadly outdoors, from dogs and guns to general practices. That's one of the reasons why I like to get off the beaten track--you meet fewer idiots P.S. I should have said "I prefer not to see dogs in the woods." I'm not suggesting a ban or anything else--just starting a dialog. No need for unhappy faces -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- polarbear replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you mostly see dogs on the weekends. I don't see them too much and they usually don't bug me. You could always carry a cheap leash with you and offer it to those who forgot one -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Backpacker Joe replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I dont much care for dogs on the trail. But then it's each persons right to bring them where they are allowed. People need to keep control of them though. It's the height of irresponsibility to allow dogs to intimidate people. TB -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't mind dogs ON the trail. I do wonder about the hyperactive ones that can't seem to stay on the trail. I assume that can't be very good for the environs in some locations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scrooge replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On family hikes Larch and I always take Ginger, and Ginger is always on leash. She's big (110 lbs) and very hard to control - around other dogs. She does intimidate some people (the ones who fear all dogs) but mostly people want to stop and pat her and tell us what a neat dog she is. All those pet stops can really slow you down. One time at Mulnomah Falls we had a lady talk to us for ten minutes about how much Ginger reminded her of a dog she used to have. - That's one of the reasons we mostly hike logging roads and unofficial trails. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owen replied: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pro gun for hikers, so that should make any dog owner think a little bit about whether their dog is friendly enough to be let loose. I will not hike in the wilderness again without at least a 38. I will not shoot at anything that doesn't threaten...even a mountain lion. Charge me, I'll shoot. My opinion is that too many dog owners fail to realize that their pet's become agressive. I don't even want to be sniffed by their dogs. That should be one of the unwritten trail rules...no unconsentual sniffing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Allison]

I think this thread was about dogs. We've quite recently beaten the firearm topic into the ground.

[Backpacker Joe]

Miss. Allison makes a point. Then again, so does Mr. Owen. I dont care to be approached by dogs that I am not familiar with. Remember the woman that was killed by two dogs in her appartment hallway in San Francisco a few years ago. If a dog appears threatening to me in the outdoors, I'll shoot it before I'll allow myself to be placed in danger. An irresponcible owner equals a lot of things in our world. TB

[Guest]

Then there's the flipside of "threatening" and hypersensitivity. You harm someone's dog on the trail because you have a tolerance problem, and that's also unacceptable. Sometimes hypersensitivity to "risk" can create a certain level of aggressiveness in the name of self defense.

[Backpacker Joe]

There is a fine line in any recognition of danger. Everyone has the right to defend themselves at anytime, but it is *absolutely* critical that you *judge* that time/insident correctly and not over, or underact to the situation. This applys to dogs, other animals and people! I didnt say it was easy. TB

[Dante]

Oh brother! Nevermind. Let's just delete this thread. I'm sorry I started it

[#19]

If this forum continually reverts to "gunchat" its doomed. Regarding dogs: What if everyone brought one? Wouldn't that be nice picinic?

[Stefan]

I think it is okay to talk about past issues. How are we ever to get people to come onto this board if we limit ourselves to what "we" have talked about. This is a completely new topic for first time people and we should encourage more first time people.

[catwoman]

very true!

[catwoman]

I just want to add that I was not trying to be bitchy to you, backpacker joe, with my post. I was merely making a point with how your post came across to me. I don't know you so I don't know how, in fact, you are in those situations. But there are some out there (not saying that's you) who have no respect for and do not care to understand nature, so will shoot whatever they feel is in their way. Understanding goes a long way. Which brings me to a new topic that I'll start on wild animals.....

[Backpacker Joe]

"There is a fine line in any recognition of danger. Everyone has the right to defend themselves at anytime, but it is *absolutely* critical that you *judge* that time/insident correctly and not over, or underact to the situation. This applys to dogs, other animals and people!" Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? Is there ONE thing about that post that DOESNT speak of *responcibility* as an individual, and/or respect for other things. Be they animals OR people. Just because a *gun* is mentioned you guys shoot to the moon and get stupid! I explained that people, gun owners or not have a RESPNCIBILITY to make sure that they knew for SURE that they are or are not threatened in a particular situation. 90% of the time you *can* back out of a situation and not use violence to resolve it. I have! I'd leave this board, but that would probably make you happy, and I cant have that! TB

[-lol-]

[Damian]

A professor once told me if I use capitalized text for emphasis I should spell the word correctly. Otherwise, something other than the word is emphasized....

[polarbear]

It is true that all dogs are equal, but some dogs are more equal than others. Rather than trying to teach the other dogs proper trail etiquette, perhaps it would be better when hiking to dress all in yellow but with a green cap on one's head. I have never seen a dog gnash its teeth at a fire hydrant.

[polarbear]

...er if you try the above, use gortex. Remember, "cotton kills"