I received this yesterday, 10/2, from Diane Garvy, a horseback rider in the Wissahickon. :
"Hi dave
Trail ambassador kim quinn is our safety guide. She would like to talk to a biker that was bit by a dog 2wks ago. Do you know who it was & how she could reach him?
Thanks"
Her email address is: Diane Garvey <diane@garveyresources.com>
David Dannenberg
Hmm.. mountain bikers are the menace? I know a lot of bikers who've been attacked by dogs. Maybe people should be reminded that there are bad apples in every user group. And it's just as wrong to walk your dog off leash as it is for me to ride a hiker-only trial.
A side effect of this experience has been that I was considering getting a dog to bring a long on ride, but no more. I would worry too much about my dog being attacked by some out of control dog in the park. A couple of friends of mine who have brought their dogs to Wissahickon have had them almost get into fights, even though they were on a leash.
Also, I agree, it's completely the fault of the owner, some dogs are more prone to being aggressive than others, it's the owners responsibility to train them not to do that or keep them on a leash at all times. This BS about how "he's always fine at home" or " I warned you to be careful around him" makes me quite angry. I always replace "dog" with "knife" and get "I warned you that my knife was stabby, why did you get so close to it?" or "My knife doesn't stab people at home, it's fine" In my mind a dog off the leash is like carrying a knife out in the open, you can make that choice, but if some one gets stabbed, it's your fault.
Nathan-
So sorry to hear about this incident. Hope you pursued proper medical attention and are OK/healing.
Would you kindly provide a description of the dog (breed? mix? coloring? size? markings?)along with the location of these events (yours and Chuck's), and provide some context of the occurrence (e.g., were you stopping to greet the dog? were you merely riding by? did the dog provide any warning that it was poised to attack?) so that others may be aware and take appropriate, and hopefully peaceful action, such as avoiding the dog if possible in the event we come across it.
I ask specific questions, because I am a big fan of canine companions, and tend to cheerfully greet all dogs on the trails, --calling them over, reaching out to pet them, etc--whether or not they are leashed--and typically, they are not.
If I can avoid this dog (before the owner learns that the law now requires this dog to be leashed AND muzzled while in the park), I'd prefer to do that.
Thanks, in advance, for your anticipated reply.
Feel better, Mister.
I want to emphasize this.
The dog is likely engaging in species-specific behavior that has been bred into it by humans, or trained into it by humans, or even merely dismissed as unproblematic by humans.
The dog is not aware of laws, any more than the dog is conscious of proper social interaction with humans/other animals unless it is properly trained by humans to curtail its instincts-- or otherwise properly restrained by humans who should know better.
The fact that the dog was leashed after the attack on Nathan is not enough. Pursuant to PA law, the dog should now be leashed and muzzled while in the park.
I really don't want to be the guy who says we need to start enforcing the leash law, I really love seeing friendly dogs run free and having fun on the trails, I like that atmosphere. I understand that others may not feel the same way and I respect that. I have been around dogs all my life, and I know with a simple command that a dog can be controlled from 30 feet or 50 feet away. I've been around trained dogs that will respond immediately to certain commands leashed or not. It's up to the owner to be able to control the dog. A friendly dog will bite if it feels endangered or feels like their master is in danger without pause.
There is a reason for the law. Aggressive dogs shouldn't be on the trail at all. If you have to muzzle your dog, should that dog really be taken on the trails?
One could easily be bitten while riding by a dog on a leash on a trail. There have been many times a dog has "snapped" its fangs reaching for my leg while on a leash. If you really don't want to hear about people being bitten on the trails then "ban all dogs" ...but that is silly, and not a solution. If an owner can't control the dog on a trial then the dog should not be there, not all dogs go around frightened of bikes and bikers or other people.
Our goal should be to create harmony on the trial, but as we all know there will always be friction between trail users, always.
First, the debate about bad dog vs. dog owner really pointless. A dog is an animal, it has no rights, if it bites you, you have the right to seek to have it put down in PA, regardless of how the owner trained or not. I like dogs, have had one since I was a kid. I also grew up on a farm and know that animals aren't people - even dogs. "Dog people" elevate their dog to the status of a child, sometimes treating it better than a child.
Second, the rule is that a dog must be on a leash no longer than 6'. This allows the owner to control the dog and check it before it takes an investigatory nip or starts chasing you. The rule is there for safety of everyone, dog, the owner, other park users.
There cannot be a debate about whether to leash or not, that is the law until its changed. Nobody advocates banning dogs, just following a law that keeps everyone safe and happy.
Personally, I love seeing dogs enjoying the park (including running around off-leash).
I know bikers, runners, hikers who take their dogs to the park and let them run off leash, because the dogs are properly trained and enjoy (sometimes require) the level of exercise they can only get off-leash.
I also think it's pretty obvious that someone who has a "dangerous dog"( which is actually defined by law) should use their common sense and not take their dog to the park. However, the law does permit the person to take their dog in public if it is properly restrained by leash and muzzle IF it can be controlled by those means.
Again, the dog is not to blame. The human has to be responsible.
So long as you are personally enjoying/happy, then I guess its ok.
The point is: it doesn't matter if the dog is trained or not, aggressive or not, it has to be on a leash in Wiss. If fluffy requires off leash exercise or can run faster than its owner can bike or run, they can take it to another park that allows unleashed dogs.
Actually-
You do NOT ALWAYS have the RIGHT TO KILL a dog if it bites you under PA LAW. Certainly if you are in the victim of a vicious attack, you have to do whatever you can to protect yourself, including killing the dog if that's what it takes.
But is the fact that you can legally KILL the proper way to use your HUMAN BRAIN to analyze this??
The right thing to do here is to report the attack, and allow the proper authority to investigate it, document it, levy any appropriate charges against the owner, quarantine the dog for evaluation, etc if necessary.
Plus- There are exceptions to the rule of IMMUNITY for you if you KILL a dog, even when under attack , so let's not be advising people of their alleged "rights" when they may, in fact, be in the WRONG.
We are all aware of the leash law.
If you think that law is going to be enforced 100% at any time, think again.
Promoting harmony among the various user groups in the park is not a bad thing.
You mis-read my post. I said you can seek to have the dog put down, which means through the appropriate channels. You report it, it gets referred to the prosecutor, and they take it from there; sometimes the dog gets a second chance, sometimes no. I assumed you had a grasp of the obvious, that you can't go and kill the dog yourself.
Without getting into the intricacies of self defense theory, which applies to people. I can say with complete confidence that if you are being attacked by a dog you can kill it without legal consequences and there is not a prosecutor around who would move forward with a charge.
How do you propose "harmony" when you say, people are going to break the rules anyway, so might as well get along with them? Harmony means both sides don't infringe on the other's rights. I don't propose doing anything more than what is already required.
I, too, love dogs/share my home with dogs, and do not bring my own dogs to the park off-leash.
I'm really upset that a friend (Nathan) got attacked in the park.
I'm really upset that another friend (Chuck) almost got attacked by the same dog, who is clearly a "dangerous dog".
Having learned of these incidents, I'm concerned for the safety of all.
This isn't a debate about the propriety of the leash law.
The law exists for good reason. No one is saying that law should not be enforced. No one is saying the law should be taken off the books.
But PMBA has no legal authority to enforce it, (much less rescind it), so saying you are for the law being enforced vs. saying you are ok with the reality of people disobeying it, is a meaningless distinction.
We have to deal with reality here.
The point is that people routinely take their dogs off leash in the park, and I think we can peacefully co-exist with the overwhelming majority of them and their canine companions.
§ 459-501. Killing dogs; dogs as nuisances
(a) Legal to kill certain dogs.--Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing other dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this act. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
(b) Private nuisance.--Any dog that enters any field or enclosure where domestic animals are confined, provided that the enclosure is adequate for the purpose intended, shall constitute a private nuisance, and the owner or tenant of such field, or their agent or servant, may detain such dog and turn it over to the local police authority or State dog warden or employee of the department. While so detained, the dog shall be treated in a humane manner.
(c) Licensed dogs not included.--Licensed dogs, when accompanied by their owner or handler, shall not be included under the provisions of this section unless caught in the act of pursuing, wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing any dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings.
§ 459-502. Dog bites; detention and isolation of dogs (b) Bite victims.--The following shall apply: (1) The investigating officer shall be responsible for notifying the bite victim of the medical results of the offending dog's confinement. Any cost to the victim for medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog must be paid fully by the owner or keeper of the dog. The Commonwealth shall not be liable for medical treatment costs to the victim. (2)(i) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “medical results of the offending dog's confinement” shall mean, except as provided in subparagraph (ii), information as to whether the quarantined dog is still alive and whether it is exhibiting any signs of being infected with the rabies virus. (ii) If a nonlethal test for rabies is developed, the term shall mean the results of the test and not the meaning given in subparagraph (i). (c) Exception.--When a dog that bites or attacks a human being is a service dog or a police work dog in the performance of duties, the dog need not be confined if it is under the active supervision of a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine.
(a) Confinement.--Any dog which bites or attacks a human being shall be confined in quarters approved by a designated employee of the Department of Health, a State dog warden or employee of the Department of Agriculture, an animal control officer or a police officer. The dog may be detained and isolated in an approved kennel or at the dog owner's property or at another [FN1] location approved by the investigating officer. Where the dog is detained is at the discretion of the investigating officer. All dogs so detained must be isolated for a minimum of ten days. Any costs incurred in the detaining and isolation of the dog shall be paid by the offending dog's owner or keeper or both. If the dog's owner or keeper is not known, the Commonwealth is responsible for all reasonable costs for holding and detaining the dog.
§ 459-504-A. Control of dangerous dogs
It is unlawful for an owner or keeper of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal or from destroying property with its teeth.
§ 459-505-A. Public safety and penalties
e) Mandatory reporting.--
(1) All known incidents of dog attacks shall be reported to the State dog warden, who shall investigate each incident and notify the department if a dog has been determined to be dangerous.
(2) A State dog warden or police officer who has knowledge of a dog which has attacked a person shall file a written report summarizing the circumstances of the attack with the police in the municipality where the owner of the dog resides or if the attack occurred outside the owner's municipality of residence, with the police having jurisdiction in the municipality where the attack occurred. The report shall be available for public inspection.
§ 459-507-A. Construction of article
So you're saying riding my bike, running or walking with my kid = "abusing, tormenting or assaulting the dog."
Thank you for setting me straight. I'll be more careful in both my opinions and actions from now on.
I remember the dog as being a black lab and the owner a semi-grumpy older man, but Nathan could probably give you a much better description. It was on the upper trail by Blue Bell park/Mt. Airy.
Let's not get distracted with all that super interesting legal "mumbo-jumbo." 
I would still like to hear about the dog per the questions Amy asked as I want to be on lookout for this dog so I don't get bit, again... Nathan, please let us know if you will be so kind...
I've actually already posted a thread about it a couple of weeks ago, I was kind of surprised it went unnoticed.
http://www.phillymtb.org/forum/wissahickon-park/yet-another-dog-bite-incident
I beg to differ with regards to my rights to kill a dog attacking me, the law is quite clear on the matter:
§ 459-501. Killing dogs; dogs as nuisances
(a) Legal to kill certain dogs.--Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing other dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this act. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
In other words, a dog attacks me, I can kill it. There's no fuzziness around this law, as long as I don't provoke or harass the animal (and even if I do it might be ok) I can defend myself and take it to the ultimate end.
Also, the leash law is enforce pretty much 0% of the time, there is basically no law in Wissahickon, and I think everyone should be well aware of that when they enter the park. The cops don't even know where the park is, let alone enforce anything in it. Park rangers are almost non-existent. Ambulances take forever to show up. We've all heard the stories and know what we're getting in when we enter the park.
That being said, I totally love dogs in the park, I stop to pet them and talk to their owners all the time. It would be sad if they were banned from the park, and it would not make sense. But it seems leaving things as they are doesn't make sense either.
These are two black labs, one with a blue collar, one with a red. They are walked by a gray-haired man with a goatee, he commonly walks them in the area around the Walnut Lane bridge, since he lives on Kingsley Rd.
One of the dogs is fine with bikers, the other is straight up vicious.
Amy, Jsweet, let’s not get bent out of shape here guys. I believe you’re both advocating for everyone’s safety here. We’ve all experienced situations where we’ve encountered dogs that have resulted in positive and negative experiences. That being said, I’m not diminishing either one of your concerns over your own safety, even more so when you’re with a child. Numerous times lately, I’ve been hiking on Lower Techie with my daughter and a dog walker comes strolling by with their dog off leash or a Mt Biker comes rolling through. Angers me because we’re all trying to be on our best behavior lately. 98% of the time the situation passes with no issue, it’s the 2% that concerns me.
The majority of dogs I come across in the park I know from the amount of time I spend on the trails. I still approach them with hesitation because you never know how the dog is going to react. Especially if they’re on leash. Instinctively I always engage the owner with a simple “hello” and “is it safe to pass?”. If they give me a hard time or are rude in their response I’ll lay into them, but again, 98% of the time there are no issues.
This past spring I was bitten by an unleashed dog twice in one week. First time it was a nip at my foot and I didn’t say much. Second time it chased me and latched onto my calve. I shook the dog off after I managed to unclip. The owner caught up and leashed the dog as I proceeded to rip them a new a#$hole. They were appalled at my language but got the point. I haven’t seen the dog or walker since.
Let’s be careful to not lump all dog walkers into the same category. I’ve seen numerous owners be responsible for managing their dogs and picking up after them. It’s the bad ones that we remember. I remember their being a serious problem with the “Crazy Dog Lady” and her German Sheppard’s over by the Indian a few years ago.
Jsweet, yes, the sign at the top of the gravel climb does have a sign informing all Mt Bikers and Equestrians to have trail permits. It’s annoying that they’re singling us out. If you stop and look at the message board, by the gate at Kitchen’s Lane, you’ll see the same sign next to a photograph of a walker with their dog off leash. It states in BOLD lettering it’s illegal to have your dog off leash in the park.
This is an issue where the Park Rangers need to get out of their vehicles and hike the upper trails more. They need to engage the public more. I’ve seen it happen more this past summer, but not enough to be effective, in my opinion.
Get a copy of the dangerous dog law act & post it on the entracne where this clown comes in so he reads it. Then just keep the phone number handy to the police district that would handle the complaint in that area. If/when it happens again, call the cops & don't let the dog out of your sight, you'll have the bite mark to prove it & the cops can deal with him. I agree that this is the owner's responsibility. I've had run ins with people like that in the past with my dog & it's amazing how idiotic some people can be. They have little to no clue what their dog is like outside their homes.
I called the PSPCA and filed a report, and asked what may actions should be in the future.
They said that they get a lot of complaints about dogs in Wissahickon, which is another indication that it's a real problem.
I asked the woman if I saw the dog off the leash could I call their number and would they send some one out right away, and she said they would. Their phone number is 267-385-3800, I'm exchanging emails with them now as well, attempting to determine a good policy for us to follow.
In other words, a dog attacks me, I can kill it. There's no fuzziness around this law, as long as I don't provoke or harass the animal (and even if I do it might be ok) I can defend myself and take it to the ultimate end.
does this mean next time I am attacked by a police dog I can kill it?
There is a specific exemption for police dogs else ware in the law.
Although, an interesting point is that menacing with dogs is against the Geneva Convention!
As much time as I spend in the park, I don't know if I've ever seen these dogs.
Sad you had to go through that, but at least others can be aware of the situation and the description.
JSweet-
Hey- I was not saying that you and/or your child were harrassing a dog by being in the park. I don't know why you feel that I was speaking to you only in my post.
I was responding to a number of things at the time, and actually had Nathan's original dog-kill comment in mind when I got into that topic.
Peace to you.
agree. also interesting how some of the trails that ive been riding on for 15 years are all of a sudden hiker only trails. is the middle trail, between Vgreen and the indian, hiker only?
i feel enlightened by this post. I will print it and hand it out to all the aholes that yell at me for riding on trails when their dogs are off the leash.
jomissa - i believe the mid line below the indian is still open to bikers. While the sign at the bottom point bikers to the upper line, i think the mid line is still a biker trail as per the map from FPC.
I posted the details on the Wissahickon sub-forum, if you're interested in details. I emailed Diane directly too.
We ran into that same dog a few days after, and he was leashed up, but still tried to bite Chuck as he rode past. Nearly got him too!
For reference, by Pennsylvania state law you are allowed to kill a dog that attacks you, it's entirely the owners fault.
Nate