[pct-l] Hiker killed by cop

[david135 at pc3i.com (David Anderson)]

Hi Lonetrail:

Lonetrail@aol.com wrote:
> In one week from Mt Lions to  Bear and now man, Please read and go to 
> websites listed below 
> 

Of course "man" has always been the predator I'm most concerned about,
followed closely by dogs. Truly wild animals are rarely a threat to a
person's life.

I've read these articles several times and don't find any reference to
the shooter being a cop, as stated in the subject line. What difference
does his profession make anyway?

These articles have enough discrepencies between them to throw doubt on
them both. How many dogs were involved? Two or three? One article says
'two' the other says 'three.'  The "dog count" would seem fairly simple
fact to determine.

The concealed handgun permit, mentioned in both articles, is a pretty
clear indicator that Fish didn't have any kind of criminal record,
mental illness or a pending divorce. Arizona has no-permit-required open
carry, right? That means anyone can legally carry, without a permit,
even the mentally deranged, unless they have been proscribed by court order.

My friends in law-enforcement have recommended to me many times that I
get a concealed-carry permit. The fact is that the officer making a
traffic stop gets your carry-permit info before he leaves his car. There
has never been a law-enforcement officer killed by a person with a
permit. Not one. Although there was one officer wounded by a permittee.
Texas as I recall. One in what? Seventy years. I've been told by many
officers that routinely make traffic stops, that as soon as they get
confirmation that stoppee has a carry-permit, they can relax. They no
longer feel their lives are at risk. For good reason.

My question: Why didn't he shoot the dogs? Based on the information in
the two articles that would have been my first response. I've been
accosted twice on the trail by dogs (five of them total) and although
one of the dogs is now deceased, with a .45 calibre heart hemorage, I
never felt particularly threatened by either of the owners. They were
both quite respectful and moved quickly to get their dogs leashed and
under control. Nothing came of it. Both incidents were in "leash
required" areas and none of the 5 dogs were leashed. Maybe the dog
owner's criminal behavior was a factor in their failure to file a
complaint against me. I don't believe either incident was ever reported.

According to the one article, Fish was attacked by the deceased. If so,
one has to wonder at the mental stability of the deceased. Who in their
right-mind would, barehanded, attack somebody with a gun pointed at
them? Perhaps he wasn't barehanded? The two articles don't really
address that point.

> One of the dogs was a therapy dog that he took to
> nursing homes!!!

This is a personal comment by LoneTrail, I can't find this particular
sentence in either article. And of course the two (or is that one?)
other dog(s) could have been rabid mad-dog killers. What difference does
it make anyway. One of the people I used to work for was attacked by an
"8 pound therapy dog" in the dog owner's home. He was a guest of the
owner and had been staying there for three days before he was attacked.
It took 19 stitches to close the wounds on his face. Fortunately they
were able to partially save the damaged eye. My understanding is that
the "therapy dog" was destroyed by court order, after lots of testimony
that the dog "wouldn't ever hurt anyone." My question to the people
giving that testimony is "who or what or how do you explain this guy's
ripped-open face?" His cup of coffee attacked him while he was sitting
on the couch at his friend's house??? In my experience, limited as it
is, coffe cups regardless of contents, don't attack anybody on their own.

> Feagan said the chow that charged Fish has a
> documented history of aggression.
>
> That is disputed by Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane
> Society president.

Which of these two statements should you believe?

Scott Feagen is a Coconino County Sheriff's Det. (no acquaintance of
mine) who claims to have documentation that the chow that attacked Fish
is agressive. I can find nothing in these article to indicate that
Feagen and Fish are acquaintances or friends or enemies, or that Feagen
has any particular reason to hate either dogs or the deceased. That
would appear, at least on the surface, to make Det. Scott Feagen a
disinterested third party.

Larry Stubbs, Payson Humane Society president, (also no acquaintance of
mine) claims that the deceased provided volunteer services to the Humane
Society and disputes the existence of "aggressive dog" documentation. I
gather that Stubbs and the deceased were acquaintances that worked
together, if not friends.

Pending other evidence, who should you believe? The disinterested third
party or the friend who runs the local Humane Society?

My conclusion: the deceased was more of a threat than the dogs, since
Fish killed the man and not the dogs. That puzzles me a bit, but you'll
have to draw your own conclusions regarding who or what was the real
threat. Obviously, there is evidence not presented in the two newspaper
articles. Shooting a dog, relatively, isn't "that much of a crime."
Killing a person is generally, and should be, taken a bit more
seriously. Or do I have this backwards? I have run into more than a few
nut-cases over the years that think shooting a dog is far more serious
than killing a person.

Personally: I carry a sidearm, during the summer, when most of the
lunatics are out, as do a quite a number of backcountry travelers. If
you carry openly, a surprising number of those that carry concealed are
willing to talk. I'm guessing 10-12% of those traveling the backcountry
of north California carry. Those that have livestock seem to be more
concerned about 4-legged predators. Those hiking alone, particularly
women, are more concerned about 2-legged predators. I don't blame them a
bit.

A friendly warning: If your dogs are aggressive, undisciplined and
unleashed, they're at risk, from me and many thousands of others. I've
killed three dogs in my life, once with a .45 automatic (on the trail),
  one with a 2x4 (on my front porch), and one of my own, by injection,
that had contracted distemper inspite of vaccination. If I think, even
for a second, that your dog is serious threat, I won't loose a second of
sleep over killing it. A dog is a weapon, as dangerous, perhaps more
dangerous, than any handgun or "assault rifle" and I treat them as such.

Having said that: a little personal history.

The year I first hiked the PCT (1982), I met up with a very attractive
young lady who was out hiking with 2 Dobermans. At first they growled
and appeared to be aggressive, although they kept their distance. She
told them to "sit." They sat. One at each side of her. After about 5-8
minutes of conversation she introduced them to me. At that point they
wanted attention. They came over and said, "Pet Me!" Gentle doesn't
begin describe them. I've never seen better behaved dogs. But there was
never any doubt in my mind they would have ripped my throat out "on
command." During every moment of this encounter, my life was very much
"at risk." In retrospect, it was spooky and I remember it as if it
happened yesterday.

I don't expect most dogs to be as disciplined, but I do expect
reasonable standards of behavior, especially from unleashed,
unrestrained animals.

Draw your own conclusions and take whatever steps you feel are necessary
to protect your own life in the backcountry, as at home. Some people
carry guns, some have dogs, some go bare-naked. As with many things in
life, it's your choice, and you live, or die, as a consequence or your
choices.

regards to all,
ol' goat