Dog rant

Todd Berlier wrote:

not sure, but anyone else getting a weird sense of deja vu?

For seeing the 687th dog at the crag rant thread? Of course not.  

Live Perchedwrote:

We get to the Uber Falls area...

Uberfall: to literally fall across; nothing to do with waterfalls or any other kind of falls.

For someone who climbed there for almost 30 years, seeing that is the visual equivalent of nails on a blackboard. Sorry.

"We prefer to stay riiiiiiight here. Now rub my belly."

Todd Berlier wrote:

not sure, but anyone else getting a weird sense of deja vu?

Shit posting about dogs and their crappy owners is a time honored forum tradition. Expect dismay to evolve to children, groups of people, crag cats, and, finally, culminating in top rope solo judge my rig threads.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

The main expense for liability portion of homeowners insurance is either people dogs biting other people or people doing dumb drunk/high stuff. People constantly sue for dog bites, so there is monetary compensation already being paid to victims of dog bites regularly. 

I believe assault is an attempt to injure a party and battery is actually injuring them. It would be hard to argue that someone trained a dog that attempted to injure you unless you could show that the dog was trained to do so. 

I think assault is from the view of the potential victim where the victim believes they are in danger. So in the case of a dog being aggressive towards someone, even if they don’t actually attack, the affected person could still have a reasonable fear for their safety, especially given that they don’t reasonably know how well the dog is trained and if it will actually attack or not.

Back to your proof, it seems on the owner to demonstrate that their dog is trained well enough that it would not attack someone.

Just to not get crucified, I do generally like dogs, but I don’t know how well Jimbo’s crag dog is trained to not bite strangers who are on a nearby route.

John Clarkwrote:

I think assault is from the view of the potential victim where the victim believes they are in danger. So in the case of a dog being aggressive towards someone, even if they don’t actually attack, the affected person could still have a reasonable fear for their safety, especially given that they don’t reasonably know how well the dog is trained and if it will actually attack or not.

Back to your proof, it seems on the owner to demonstrate that their dog is trained well enough that it would not attack someone.

Just to not get crucified, I do generally like dogs, but I don’t know how well Jimbo’s crag dog is trained to not bite strangers who are on a nearby route.

Nonpracticing dog law specialist here. I don't think that's how assault works. If it were, we'd have a lot of "potential victims" in society, and a lot of completely oblivious people in jail. Similarly, I have to trust that that SUV is going to stop in time to not hit me while I'm walking in the crosswalk. Even if it scares me, I don't think I have recourse unless they actually hit me. The best you can get is proving gross negligence on the owner, if they were to knowingly bring a dog with a history of known aggression and leave it off leash, and even then I bet you'd have to show damages.

Edit @ Andy below: Agree. What each of us finds annoying will vary by individual. Recently I was camping at Index, and a family in a van next to me let their kids (ages 2-5) run around having fun. Multiple times per night, for three days, these kids came over to me, touched their filthy hands to my whole kitchen set up, touched me, tried to sit on my lap, etc. They were cute, but it did get annoying at times. Their dad was cool, and routinely scooped them up and apologized. I just saw this as the cost of living in a society, in which sometimes we have to live with minor annoyances. There was no harm, so there was no foul. Sometimes someone talks too close for comfort to my face, or coughs without covering their mouth, and sometimes some random dog sniffs my butt. I try to take these things in stride, but I do see a distinction between minor, somewhat unavoidable things like this, and purposely obnoxious behavior like a super loud group who clearly doesn't give a shit about anyone else around them. Most dog interactions (that I've experienced) fall into the former category. 

Edit @ John:

Yeah, don't know about that. I guess you could compare that to a mentally unstable person approaching you while yelling random shit? Have had it happen many times to me in SF... I usually just try not to engage while inobviously preparing to defend myself. Never thought about pressing charges. 

Ollie sleeps with his tongue out and doesn't instantly wake up when you put some string cheese on it.  He also loves spending time with us hiking through the woods but couldn't care less about hanging out at a crag and is happy to stay home and nap while mom and dad are out climbing and getting covered in interesting scents for a good sniff down when we get home. 

Brandon Rwrote:

Nonpracticing dog law specialist here. I don't think that's how assault works. If it were, we'd have a lot of "potential victims" in society, and a lot of completely oblivious people in jail. Similarly, I have to trust that that SUV is going to stop in time to not hit me while I'm walking in the crosswalk. Even if it scares me, I don't think I have recourse unless they actually hit me. The best you can get is proving gross negligence on the owner, if they were to knowingly bring a dog with a history of known aggression and leave it off leash, and even then I bet you'd have to show damages. 

Fair point. Since this is a fun hypothetical, if a human was yelling at you and assuming a position to potentially attack you, you might find that a different scenario than a anonymous car moving your direction while in a crosswalk, no? So, how is that different from a dog, that you presumably don’t understand the barks of, barking, baring teeth, and bluff charging?

Post limit edit to reply to your post limit edit:

I lived in my van in the Mission for a couple years. I know at least 2 people who ended up being stabbed by the scary people. That said, there isn’t much you can do to punish those people, since they are living nearly the worst lives they can be living already. You can however punish the legal owner of a dog presumably. 

Post limit Edit to slot in below Princess:

Princess, I believe the thread has delivered our conclusion. Ban dogs from public and if a soft person needs a pet-able emotional support animal and/or protection, we give them a chinchilla and/or a Glock.

*heavy sarcasm* Problem solved! High fives for everyone!

Brandon Rwrote:

The worst you're gonna get with this one is a long sniff of your butt, with perhaps some minor snoot penetration if she likes what you have to offer. 

Not to take this too seriously, but there are a few fairly innocuous behaviors that dog owners may not realize bother people.  It’s not unreasonable for people to not want to be sniffed, slobbered on, jumped on, or even approached; however, there is rarely negative feedback, since it’s easier (and more polite) to brush these things aside than to say, “can you keep your friendly dog away from me?”  On the flip side, dog owners get a ton of positive feedback from people asking to pet their dog. 

In most cases, inconveniences/discomforts to others will probably be small, and the benefits dog owners get from bringing their dog will almost certainly outweigh them, but it’s still worth being conscious of how it affects others.  

John Clarkwrote:

I think assault is from the view of the potential victim where the victim believes they are in danger. 

But there concept of danger has to be reasonable. Most people don't scream when a dog walks past them, however they do with a lion. I doubt the mere presence of a dog could constitute reasonable fear. Maybe if the dog was making aggressive poses the fear could be real but then you are arguing that this specific animal is inciting fear and not that the entire species is dangerous. 

So in the case of a dog being aggressive towards someone, even if they don’t actually attack, the affected person could still have a reasonable fear for their safety, especially given that they don’t reasonably know how well the dog is trained and if it will actually attack or not.

Back to your proof, it seems on the owner to demonstrate that their dog is trained well enough that it would not attack someone.

Just to not get crucified, I do generally like dogs, but I don’t know how well Jimbo’s crag dog is trained to not bite strangers who are on a nearby route.

I don't really think this could fly. This is essentially saying the owner needs a license for a dog. Which would be a nightmare, impractical and impossible to implement. Because without licensure what is a trained dog?  In the sense of licensing there generally needs to be an underlying motivation; 99% of dogs do not pose a hazard to anyone so what is the motivation to implement? 

 When the chance/actual cost of damages are relatively low retroactive punishment seems like a far better way to manage misbehaving dogs. Owners currently should fear being sued for poor behaved dogs. There are somethings where proactive regulation seems pertinent (cases where damage is irreversible like environmental catastrophes, regulation of arms, and regulation of vices) but these are all to prevent absolute catastrophes. Even terrible dog bites are significantly less terrible than most violent crimes so if we proactively regulate dogs, why wouldn't we proactively regulate people?

Todd Berlier wrote:

it was certainly an effective way that he handled the situation--not one i would choose. 

Me either, but it beats the fuck out of getting mauled by a dog.  Had a similar interaction- also at the NRG at the lake (go figure) where this dog was ready to take a chunk out of me, and I'm standing there calmly not moving letting the dog do it's thing as it snarls and barks and growls about 2 feet away from me while the owner is 4 bolts up telling me to calm down because I'm upsetting his dog.  I'm not one to ruin a perfectly good climbing day or trip with a physical altercation with another climber, but I was super close that day.  

The thing with these dog threads is that it's usually the same story- some variation of a misbehaving dog, most likely somewhat dangerous, off-leash, oblivious or downright rude owner, and people still have the audacity to defend that shit.  I don't get it.  Just keep your mongrel leashed and everything is cool.  Or, if you have a chill dog and YOU'RE cool with it, I'll probably give it some of my jerky or whatever else I have.  I love dogs, I really do.  I've had them my whole life and my dogs live better than I do probably.  I'll even defer to you and give you first choice of the route you wanna get on if we show up at the same time, I just don't want to get bitten.  That's too much to ask in today's self-absorbed, entitlement-stifled social reality though I suppose.  I think I'm just going to adopt a bear cub and see what happens when I bring that fucker to the crag 2 years later :-D

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

"people dogs biting other people"

Matt Robinsonwrote:

Ollie sleeps with his tongue out and doesn't instantly wake up when you put some string cheese on it.  He also loves spending time with us hiking through the woods but couldn't care less about hanging out at a crag and is happy to stay home and nap while mom and dad are out climbing and getting covered in interesting scents for a good sniff down when we get home. 

Hahahaha, classic.  Here's my derpo doing the same thing:

Idk I find people more annoying than dogs. I'd be more stoked for a annoying dog to show up to a boulder than a climbing team.

My dog steals socks.  Watch out.

Jordan Wilsonwrote:

I guess I don't really understand what you get by bringing your dog to the crag. I mean you don't really interact with them much.  Why make the dog and other humans go through unnecessary discomfort?

Some people interact with their dogs more than others, and I can see your point. However, most crag dogs are almost always happier at the crag with their owner than at home. As far as the reasoning goes, I’m sure it really depends on the owner. For me, personally, even though my dog is on a leash 90% of the time at the crag he is still enjoying himself and getting tired more than if I left him at home….which means I don’t have to entertain him when I get done with a long day of climbing. Its mostly selfish so I don’t have to get his energy out when I get home. 

I have nothing against dogs. I own one, love them and understand why people bring them. I was petting the offender a few minutes before they stole my jerky.

My point is more about the owners. If you bring your dog and it’s gonna be disturbing others and getting into mischief, put it on a leash or leave it at home. The owners just kind of laughed it off and thought it was just cute puppy. I didn’t raise too much of a stink, but I know other people who would lose their shit.

I like to let my dog off leash as well, but if people are around I know she can’t be trusted to leave them and their food alone. I also know not everyone likes dogs, so I put her on leash.

She’s so bad that once my wife had her on leash while hiking, and stopped to ask a man and his little boy for directions. My dog stole the little boys sandwich out of his hands while the dad was helping her.

The photo above is of a repeat offender claiming she doesn’t know what happened to the rice that was left on the counter…

Glad you started this thread. Needed to be discussed.