Dogs that bite

Todd Berlier wrote:

you of course. its always the owner's fault. thats just the way it is.

OK. That's an opinion. People are not responsible for their actions or behavior around animals they don't know.

It is not analogous, but have you ever had your picture taken next to a buffalo at Yellowstone?

Todd Berlier wrote:

My wife is laughing so hard right now at someone telling me when I state a fact that I gave an opinion.

"Utah Code Section 18-1-1. Liability of owners -- Scienter -- Dogs used in law enforcement.

(1) Every person owning or keeping a dog is liable in damages for injury committed by the dog, and it is not necessary in the action brought therefor to allege or prove that the dog was of a vicious or mischievous disposition or that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that it was vicious or mischievous. (2) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), neither the state nor any county, city, or town in the state nor any peace officer employed by any of them shall be liable in damages for injury committed by a dog, if: (a) the dog has been trained to assist in law enforcement; and (b) the injury occurs while the dog is reasonably and carefully being used in the apprehension, arrest, or location of a suspected offender or in maintaining or controlling the public order."

Im not tryng to be a dick. It is your fault even if it isn't which I agree in this case is a shitty situation and Im sorry that you had to go thru that. and moreover that your daughter had to see that. 

Legally, sure maybe…still not sure how likely that scenario would hold up in court…but anyone with common sense is going to agree the dude who approached the leashed dog off the corner is at fault for (not getting) a dog bite to the Achilles. 

Todd Berlier wrote:

My wife is laughing so hard right now at someone telling me when I state a fact that I gave an opinion.

"Utah Code Section 18-1-1. Liability of owners -- Scienter -- Dogs used in law enforcement.

(1) Every person owning or keeping a dog is liable in damages for injury committed by the dog, and it is not necessary in the action brought therefor to allege or prove that the dog was of a vicious or mischievous disposition or that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that it was vicious or mischievous. (2) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), neither the state nor any county, city, or town in the state nor any peace officer employed by any of them shall be liable in damages for injury committed by a dog, if: (a) the dog has been trained to assist in law enforcement; and (b) the injury occurs while the dog is reasonably and carefully being used in the apprehension, arrest, or location of a suspected offender or in maintaining or controlling the public order."

Im not tryng to be a dick. It is your fault even if it isn't which I agree in this case is a shitty situation and Im sorry that you had to go thru that. and moreover that your daughter had to see that. 

True Utah has some of the strictest dog ownership laws in the US. 

And you're not being a dick. You're being pedantic. And not stating the entirety of the law, or its spirit. 

My daughter and dog were sitting on a blanket; our personal/private property (an object can be private property per Utah law when it meets 3 district criteria. It need not apply solely to land.)

"Utah Code Section 18-1-1. Liability of owners 

(3) A person who owns a dog... is not liable for an injury ...if the injury occurs:  (b) on the [owner's] private property ... and [the person] entered that property without consent.  (Guard dogs) 

Im still confused why everyone in here acts like muzzles don't exist

Lady H I get your point but id bet crag humans Are responsible for much more environmental damage than crag dogs 

J Ewrote:

Im still confused why everyone in here acts like muzzles don't exist

Lady H I get your point but id bet crag humans Are responsible for much more environmental damage than crag dogs 

You gonna muzzle it’s butthole too? The anti-dog crowd has voiced its opinion that dog shit is equally as infuriating as dog bites. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

You gonna muzzle it’s butthole too? The anti-dog crowd has voiced its opinion that dog shit is equally as infuriating as dog bites. 

Human shit 

J Ewrote:

Human shit 

Don’t even get me started on a banning-humans-at-the-crag thread

I remember helping develop a crag in Logan Canyon [Utah] that’s now quite popular, and I remember how beautiful it was when we first discovered it, with grass and wildflowers growing everywhere,” said Doug Heinrich, vice president of product for Black Diamond Equipment and a lifelong climber. “But if you go there today, it’s all bare, compacted earth. Not a blade of grass or flower in sight. That really bummed me out. But the point is, climbers don’t even know what’s been lost when they visit new areas. Unless you see before and after photos, you have no idea what sort of impact climbers cause.

— via "The Mentorship Gap: What Climbing Gyms Can't Teach You"

“But the point is, climbers don’t even know what’s been lost when they visit new areas.”

This.
And sadly, it really doesn’t matter much to most of them.

J Ewrote:

Im still confused why everyone in here acts like muzzles don't exist

Lady H I get your point but id bet crag humans Are responsible for much more environmental damage than crag dogs 

Certainly crag humans cause far more damage.

But?

That's why, eventually, infrastructure gets put in place, and, hopefully, people respect that infrastructure. If people do that, it's at least minimized. Without that infrastructure, most of our crags would be pretty bleak. At truly popular spots, it's the only viable option for climbing (camping, hiking, biking, etc) to move forward, with ever increasing usage.

Dogs, however, expand that impact outside of the infrastructure, even leashed.

This is the Rollercoaster wall, on the back side of Bath rock. Probably the most visited climbing in Idaho. The infrastructure there, trails, stairs, staging area with fencing, helps corral the climbers, and there are still bushes and trees in relative proximity to the wall.

Just outside the fence? 

Are all the scoops where pups snooze. 

This is leashed dogs, almost always totally chill. 

Unleashed?

You're really begging trouble, or an outright ban on dogs at that crag. Everyone on here should be able to grasp that the simplest answer to any problem, for managers of public lands, is "no". 

Climbers aren't the only culprits in this, of course, but we sure could do a lot to help make our pups a non issue. 

Besides, there's also the dog's comfort and safety to consider. I've seen lost dogs running along roads, terrified, confused, scared, quite a few times at COR. I've also seen dogs nearly hit by cars, and poor pups who discovered the park has prickly pear cacti.

At the very least, keep your pup leashed, have what is needed to take care of them, and someone there who will do so. 

Beyond that? Do some friendly, gentle, self policing with others in our community. This just shouldn't be a problem.

Best, Helen

Did somebody say crag dog?

​Bruno, I appreciate your willingness to cool things down and think about where we find common ground

To be fair I agree with you that some combinations of dog and owner can be totally chill at the crag. It’s just that in my experience they are in the minority, and the negative impacts of a bad dog on everybody else outweigh the neutral impacts of a fine dog on everybody else, so on the whole I am against it.

Charlie B wrote:

What says the mob?

I left my dog away from the crag, off trail in a good spot with my 12 year daughter, who likes to draw while my wife and I climb. My dog is a blue heeler (yes they have a propensity for being protective and nipping), and she is a sensitive rescue dog that "fell off the back of a truck in NM". She is sweet and loving but weary of people. She doesn't bark, and only sleeps at the crag. 

All of a sudden a younger dude, climber, ran down the hill stomping on the talus. He went off the main trail and towards my dog and daughter. My daughter flinched at the noise and my dog got scared and tried to nip him as he came within 3 feet of my daughter. My dog barely missed getting the back of his pants as he leapt out of the way and she was on a leash. 

What does the climber own in this conflict? 

I took my dog away from the trail. 

I leashed my dog, who was quiet all day. 

My daughter was with my dog. 

Who's at fault here?

You are at fault here, almost entirely.

It’s impossible for me to know for sure what this young dude  did, whether he stomped so loudly and moved so fast and approached so closely that he “deserved” to get bit, is a very subjective question, and we only have your side, so I really can’t make a call there. That’s why I say “almost” entirely, to leave room for some unknowns here.

What I do know is that you, knowing your dog has a “propensity for nipping” brought her out in public and put her in a situation where those instincts were pretty likely to be triggered. Knowing this, you tried to mitigate the situation, by keeping her leashed and out of the way. Even then, you still almost had an incident.

your post has a lot of classic justifications in it “shes very sweet and loving” “she’s a rescue” as if that excuses your behavior (to be fair it does kind of excuse her behavior, but not yours). I applaud you for taking in and caring for a rescue (legitimately, this is not sarcasm. a lot of dogs have had a tough start and they deserve a happy loving home too.) and I understand that you probably have a great relationship with your dog and that in the right contexts, she could be great with strangers, but it’s clear by the fact she tried to bite someone at the crag that the crag is not one of those contexts.

At a basic level this is bad dog ownership and poor crag etiquette. If you know your dog might bite people for behaving in ways that people can be reasonably expected to behave it’s your responsibility to keep that dog out of those situations. For the dogs sake, and for other peoples sake. 

You are at fault here, almost entirely.

It’s impossible for me to know for sure what this young dude  did, whether he stomped so loudly and moved so fast and approached so closely that he “deserved” to get bit, is a very subjective question, and we only have your side, so I really can’t make a call there. That’s why I say “almost” entirely, to leave room for some unknowns here.

What I do know is that you, knowing your dog has a “propensity for nipping” brought her out in public and put her in a situation where those instincts were pretty likely to be triggered. Knowing this, you tried to mitigate the situation, by keeping her leashed and out of the way. Even then, you still almost had an incident.

your post has a lot of classic justifications in it “shes very sweet and loving” “she’s a rescue” as if that excuses your behavior (to be fair it does kind of excuse her behavior, but not yours). I applaud you for taking in and caring for a rescue (legitimately, this is not sarcasm. a lot of dogs have had a tough start and they deserve a happy loving home too.) and I understand that you probably have a great relationship with your dog and that in the right contexts, she could be great with strangers, but it’s clear by the fact she tried to bite someone at the crag that the crag is not one of those contexts.

At a basic level this is bad dog ownership and poor crag etiquette. If you know your dog might bite people for behaving in ways that people can be reasonably expected to behave it’s your responsibility to keep that dog out of those situations. For the dogs sake, and for other peoples sake. 

I would like to respectfully disagree here.  I know you're against bringing dogs to crags Nowhere, but I think your pushing the limits here. 

There truly has to be some responsability in terms of people's behavior regarding how they approach and interact with dogs.  As I have said before, dogs have been part of human life for thosands of years, and enjoy a unique evolutionary bond with us.  They are part of life--going out in public means interacting with dogs, and taking some care for how you do so.  

Yes, there are dogs that nip and lunge or attack unprovoked, but they are the great minority of dogs.  I am willing to bet that the majority of dog bite cases could be avoided if people simply gave dogs a little respect and room, if they modified their behavior just a little bit, the same way that you would accomodate a young child or an elderly person in a public space.  If there is a dog neaby, you can't just push ahead and ignore the dog, refuse to give way out of anger or stubborness or lack of awareness, or invade the dog's space because you think that's your right, and not expect some reaction.  This is what we do in public spaces--we accomodate the public, including other humans and animals, with tolerance and compromise.  Anything less is an extremely entitled viewpoint, as I have argued in the past.  

In this case, we're not talking about two pit bulls attacking another dog, or a out of control bully XL.  We're talking about a family dog on a leash lying on a blanket with a young girl.  The climber ran into an area area with no care or respect, and the dog reacted just as one might expect.  This is common sense.  It is completely the climber's fault.  

I think the owner took all reasonable precautions, the dog seems to be just fine for a crag dog, and I appluad the owner for bringing his family, dog and child, to the crag.  This is life.  

Bruno Schullwrote:

In this case, we're not talking about two pit bulls attacking another dog, or a out of control bully XL.  We're talking about a family dog on a leash lying on a blanket with a young girl.  The climber ran into an area area with no care or respect, and the dog reacted just as one might expect.  This is common sense.  It is completely the climber's fault.  

In no situation short of self defense/defense of others can a dog bite be justified and the blame cast on the victim. If the guy attacked the girl, nobody would have a problem. "Walking nearby" is not a reason to be bitten. If you want to make the analogy to giving space to people, it's also not a reason to be punched by a person. Running or being loud outdoors does not justify physical violence by person or dog, and if either is incapable of refraining from attacking, they shouldn't be at the crag.

Josh Gateswrote:

In no situation short of self defense/defense of others can a dog bite be justified and the blame cast on the victim. If the guy attacked the girl, nobody would have a problem. "Walking nearby" is not a reason to be bitten. If you want to make the analogy to giving space to people, it's also not a reason to be punched by a person. Running or being loud outdoors does not justify physical violence by person or dog, and if either is incapable of refraining from attacking, they shouldn't be at the crag.

I have no horse in this race, but it’s a bit more nuanced than this.   Some key factors are the length of the leash and how close the guy actually got.  

Running and being loud outdoors CAN cross into potentially illegal disruptive behavior that can provoke defensive responses.  If I was the lawyer, I’d sure paint it as “lunging” towards a small child “who feared for her safety” and “stood her ground” (Utah has some of the most protective stand your ground laws) and her dog took protective measures.   As was said before, it’s often who has the better lawyer and who can charm the jury/judge better.   I wouldn’t bet against an innocent little girl sitting on a blanket coloring and being protected by her dog   

All this is theoretical though as the real situation resolved itself practically ideally.  Nobody got hurt, but all involved had an eye opening learning experience. 

Bottom line though is if you’re a big doofus, don’t go charging towards small innocent children with dogs.   

People are mixing "fault" and "responsibility".

Even if your pups behavior is entirely the fault of someone/thing else, it is still 100% your responsibility.

Same as your children. If your 17.5 year old decides to do something stupid, it may not be your fault. But it's still you who will be held responsible. Heck, if it's money? Maybe even when they're a full adult (student loans), or even your own spouse might leave you liable (responsible) for shit you had no direct part in.

And, just like in climbing, there is always the possibility of low probability, high consequence events, with animals, children, spouses....

So pick judiciously and make wise decisions about the lot of them, and the risk/reward/nuisance quotient!

Dog and gun owners have a lot in common. Both can bring happiness, both can cause injuries and even deaths. Should a few bad instances ban dogs or guns from use? Does bread or type of gun matter when it is the owner's misuse/training that causes the problems? If you're supportive of both dogs and guns I understand your stance. Likewise if you are for removing guns and dogs from public spaces I understand you. 

Quite the insightful post Helen.  I might add to choose wisely what you name a route in your twenties because it might cost you your job in your fifties... 

Old lady Hwrote:

People are mixing "fault" and "responsibility"

Hi H--that's a great distinction, and an important contribution.  

At the same time, these two terms wind around each other in complicated ways in the legal system, and in our common sense idea of what justice means.

Just to return to this particular incident, I think Mark Pilate showed one way it could be interpreted.  Dog is on leash quitly sitting with girl.  Man aproaches/scares/threatens girl.  Dog defends girl.  Case closed.  

That climber should have taken more care.

Edit for Post Limit-see post below. 

@ Leron, OK, yes, let's take your example.  But your choice of words shows your bias.  Instead of "aggressive" older brother, let's say "everyday/normal/regular" older brother.  Girl is lying on the blanket drawing, older brother has his nose buried in an iphone or whatever, and somne crazy rando springs up out of nowhere and invades their space.  In an instinctive moment of defence, brother pushes/scrapes climber, inadvertently breaking the skin.  Self defence.  Case closed.

Bruno Schullwrote:

Just to return to this particular incident, I think Mark Pilate showed one way it could be interpreted.  Dog is on leash quitly sitting with girl.  Man aproaches/scares/threatens girl.  Dog defends girl.  Case closed.  

That climber should have taken more care.

Let's say instead of a dog it was an aggressive older brother. Climber aproaches/scares girl so the brother assaults the climber. Clearly climber should have taken more care case closed.

@bruno I used biased language in hopes of sparking a conversation. I was thinking more along the lines of a climber startling a 12yr old bother. He throws a rock causing the need for stitches. I would believe under this situation the parents would be responsible for the cost of the stitches. Would you disagree?