To the American Fork climbers with aggressive Rhodesian Ridgebacks...

I had a friend who was very successful with training previously abused aggressive dogs. They claimed it boiled down to constant vigilance (making sure the dog knows that you are the boss) and lots of boundaries/structure. His dogs were only allowed to eat after the humans ate; they were required to sit and wait for the food to be placed in front of them and then given a command to begin eating. In the house, they were required to only lay on their dog beds and NEVER on any furniture. If you sleep with your dog in the bed, it might start to believe it is alpha. 

On the other hand, the last time a dog tried to bite me at a crag, I ended up talking with its owners and we all became friends (seriously, we hang out pretty much weekly and climb together frequently). Their dog is still not well behaved though (hint: it sleeps on the bed and gets treated like a human a lot).

JonasMR wrote:

I'm seeing a lot of potential/previous dog murderers in here.  I feel where you're coming from.  But surely whipping out the bear spray is less permanent solution to an immediate problem?  I know spraying (beta, lol) at the base of a crag is not the most awesome, but if you or yours are feeling threatened...  

I've carried, pointed, but so far never had to discharge at a dog.  Any relevant experiences?

Wait, we're not all dog murderers?  I thought this was MurderProject, dog subforum.  My bad.

Dylan B. wrote:

The point is, what people perceive as "aggressive" can very widely, and dog owners have a duty to be mindful of their impacts on others (as does everyone). In tort law we have a concept of the eggshell skull. The tortfeasor is liable for harms they cause even if the victim is uniquely vulnerable. You take the victim as they are, not as most people are. Likewise, I think, for the impacts of dogs on the crag. You have to assume some folks are particularly scared or vulnerable. If your dog's behavior could be perceived as aggressive, it's your duty to mitigate it by supervising the dog personally, or leaving her home.

You hit it on the head here. My wife is an avid trail runner and hiker and often comes in contact with dogs on the trail that people allow to run ahead or behind. For some reason, before my wife ever really got to be nervous around dogs, they had a tendency to snap at or actually bit her. No reason, no provocation, nothing. We have a dog so it's not like she doesn't know dogs. So now, naturally she has become more nervous about the behavior of dogs she doesn't know. However, she still doesn't act like it, just patiently waits for them to pass. 

The BIG problem here is that every time someone's dog snaps at my wife. They tell her that their dog "never does that" and blames my wife for being nervous. She has actually had people tell her that it's her fault for being nervous and bringing out some aggressive behavior in their dog. She's standing on the side of the trail doing nothing, waiting for the dog to pass. 

Two things: If your dog has any aggressive behavior at all, do not let them run free. If your dog, who "never does that" becomes aggressive for some reason do not blame the person. Blame the dog. You are the owner, act like it. Apologize for your dogs poor behavior and do something about it. Don't get mad at some nice lady, child, man, on the trail or crag. Taking personal offense when someone is nervous about your dog is a strange reaction. The dog is not a reflection of you. However, the way you respond to the actions of your dog are a perfect reflection of you.  

Merlin wrote:

If you know your dog is aggressive and you know people are going to be schmucks and let their dogs run free, why not just hike elsewhere? I used to be of the mindset that "God damn it, if people want to bring it, bring it."  Age has mellowed me and I tend to avoid conflict, it makes for easier days.  There's the world you want to live in and the world you do.

What Merlin said.  If this is happening to you 1-2 times a week, you're doing it wrong. 

Showed up to a crag in NC a couple years back and was immediately tackled off a small rock outcropping by some guy's pit bull. Finished the day with a sprained wrist and bruised ribs. The lawn pigs gotta control their dergs.

I hope you actually spoke to them in person Amy A.  Complaining online afterwards without speaking to people doesn't do a whole lot.

Ryan Hamilton wrote:

You hit it on the head here. My wife is an avid trail runner and hiker and often comes in contact with dogs on the trail that people allow to run ahead or behind. For some reason, before my wife ever really got to be nervous around dogs, they had a tendency to snap at or actually bit her. No reason, no provocation, nothing. We have a dog so it's not like she doesn't know dogs. So now, naturally she has become more nervous about the behavior of dogs she doesn't know. However, she still doesn't act like it, just patiently waits for them to pass. 

The BIG problem here is that every time someone's dog snaps at my wife. They tell her that their dog "never does that" and blames my wife for being nervous. She has actually had people tell her that it's her fault for being nervous and bringing out some aggressive behavior in their dog. She's standing on the side of the trail doing nothing, waiting for the dog to pass. 

Two things: If your dog has any aggressive behavior at all, do not let them run free. If your dog, who "never does that" becomes aggressive for some reason do not blame the person. Blame the dog. You are the owner, act like it. Apologize for your dogs poor behavior and do something about it. Don't get mad at some nice lady, child, man, on the trail or crag. Taking personal offense when someone is nervous about your dog is a strange reaction. The dog is not a reflection of you. However, the way you respond to the actions of your dog are a perfect reflection of you.  

Damn straight!

Hamish Malin wrote:

What Merlin said.  If this is happening to you 1-2 times a week, you're doing it wrong. 

Really? Somehow I'm fucking up walking my dog around my condo complex or on a leash required park? Sorry, off leash dogs are a goddamned menace in salt lake. As mentioned before, people even let their dogs run ahead out of sight on suburban sidewalks, like it's the fucking wilderness

notmyname wrote:

Really? Somehow I'm fucking up walking my dog around my condo complex or on a leash required park? Sorry, off leash dogs are a goddamned menace in salt lake. As mentioned before, people even let their dogs run ahead out of sight on suburban sidewalks, like it's the fucking wilderness

Whatever.  Read your comments back to yourself, you almost seem pleased to often end up in situations where you need to react violently with dogs that you admit are not aggressive because yours happens to be.  I get that these leashless owners may be out of line but you seem to be happily playing the victim role.

What have you done to be the better person?

notmyname wrote:

My dog is on a leash and under control. If an unleashed dog runs up to him and doesn't back off, yeah fucker's getting zapped. Well within my legal right to do pretty much whatever I feel necessary if your dog is off leash and not under direct control. A stun gun is a non lethal deterrant, does a lot less harm than hiting it with a stick. 

I'm not sure if you're referring to walking your dog around town or in the mountains.  But since this thread started out about AF, it's worth noting that off-leash dogs are allowed anywhere in the Forest Service land in AF, except parking areas and developed recreation areas.  Climbing areas don't count as "developed."  

I'm not offering an opinion on what's right -- I think people should obviously short-leash their dogs if they have any tendency at all toward aggression -- but anyone who thinks they can freely stun-gun a dog that is off-leash should know that the law is probably not on your side in undeveloped FS areas.

builttospill wrote:

...but anyone who thinks they can freely stun-gun a dog that is off-leash should know that the law is probably not on your side in undeveloped FS [Forest Service] areas.

Is that the case?  My google-fu didn't come up with an clear answer.  I found cases of folks killing off leash dogs then literally crying wolf.  But found no one being prosecuted for lethal or non-lethal action against another's dog on Forest Service land.  Anyone with experience or legal knowledge want to weigh in?  My guess is the magic phrase, 'I felt threatened' lets you off any legal hook when an unleashed dog is headed your way, especially in a witness free forest.

builttospill wrote:

I'm not sure if you're referring to walking your dog around town or in the mountains.  But since this thread started out about AF, it's worth noting that off-leash dogs are allowed anywhere in the Forest Service land in AF, except parking areas and developed recreation areas.  Climbing areas don't count as "developed."  

I'm not offering an opinion on what's right -- I think people should obviously short-leash their dogs if they have any tendency at all toward aggression -- but anyone who thinks they can freely stun-gun a dog that is off-leash should know that the law is probably not on your side in undeveloped FS areas.

Even on Forest Service land, pets off leash are required to be under strict recall control by their owner. So if I was to take my dog to AF (which I would never do) and someone's unleashed dog came up to us and wanted to fight, I would be totally within my right to use force against that dog. I wouldn't though, b/c I use a stun gun. 

And no I'm not dropping this becuase it's a huge problem with people thinking it's ok to let their dogs run wild and run up to stangers and calling me a sociopath is pretty fucking low. And I re-read my comments and stand by them. My original reason for posting was to see if the original dogs in question were off leash, then provided a warning to folks who just let their dogs run wild. 

notmyname wrote:

Even on Forest Service land, pets off leash are required to be under strict recall control by their owner. So if I was to take my dog to AF (which I would never do) and someone's unleashed dog came up to us and wanted to fight, I would be totally within my right to use force against that dog. I wouldn't though, b/c I use a stun gun. 

And no I'm not dropping this becuase it's a huge problem with people thinking it's ok to let their dogs run wild and run up to stangers and calling me a sociopath is pretty fucking low. And I re-read my comments and stand by them. 

I don't think you're a sociopath.  I used to be exactly like you.  I used to feel morally justified getting hyper aggressive when the behaviour was, as you say, just wrong.  My point is simply that the anger doesn't change the situation and just screws up your day.  I hike with an unusual pet and it ALWAYS drew dogs.  I'd get angry, aggressive, threaten people, and then one day I just said to myself, 'This is silly, what are you trying to prove?' Now I just turn 90 degrees when I see a potential conflict. I'm a lot happier this way.

Merlin wrote:

I don't think you're a sociopath.  I used to be exactly like you.  I used to feel morally justified getting hyper aggressive when the behaviour was, as you say, just wrong.  My point is simply that the anger doesn't change the situation and just screws up your day.  I hike with an unusual pet and it ALWAYS drew dogs.  I'd get angry, aggressive, threaten people, and then one day I just said to myself, 'This is silly, what are you trying to prove?' Now I just turn 90 degrees when I see a potential conflict. I'm a lot happier this way.

Well when you put it that way! Yes, you are absolutely correct. 

Eric D wrote:

I hope you actually spoke to them in person Amy A.  Complaining online afterwards without speaking to people doesn't do a whole lot.

One shouldn't have to talk to a dog offender, it's common courtesy to keep your dogs in check.

I don't much care for dags but I do like caravans 

JonasMR wrote:

Is that the case?  My google-fu didn't come up with an clear answer.  I found cases of folks killing off leash dogs then literally crying wolf.  But found no one being prosecuted for lethal or non-lethal action against another's dog on Forest Service land.  Anyone with experience or legal knowledge want to weigh in?  My guess is the magic phrase, 'I felt threatened' lets you off any legal hook when an unleashed dog is headed your way, especially in a witness free forest.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to check whether federal statutes have defined dog bite laws.  To the extent that Utah law applies on FS land in AF Canyon, someone is probably well within their right to stun-gun a dog that approaches them if it makes them feel nervous.  Notice I said "probably." 

My original point was that many people assume an off-leash dog is sufficient for the dog owner to be at fault for anything that happens next.  Where there are leash laws (most cities/counties), having your dog off-leash contributes to your criminal and civil liability in case of a dog bite because you are negligent.  On the FS land in question, that is not a trump card in determining liability, because the owner is not violating the law by having their dog off-leash.  For instance, assume you were on FS land in Virginia and my dog was off-leash.  You poked my dog with a stick a few times until it bit you.  I would not be liable for the bite -- and may be able to recover damages from you if you hurt my dog afterward -- because the courts consider you negligent rather than me.  Note that VA does not have strict liability for dog bites, while Utah does, some VA law is significantly more lenient toward dog owners.

The lack of a leash law on FS land just muddies the waters. This, rather than any particular legal opinion, was my point.  People should be aware of this murkiness if they have any intention of stun-gunning dogs.  That's not to say you're not within your legal rights -- it's just to say that those legal rights are not as clearly defined as in leash-law-applicable places.  I would not personally want to hire a lawyer to sort out my liability and argue about the precise circumstances, including how justified I was in feeling threatened, if a dog owner sued me for stunning Fido.  

Scared on Toprope wrote:

I don't much care for dags but I do like caravans 

And I'm terribly partial to the periwinkle blue.

(the thread with all the dog photos is better) 

If I took him to the crag I would then have to eat him.

Of course at his age it would be a little tough.  But rules are rules.