Finally had to use my .410 shotshell pencil eraser load. I have a farm dog that likes to bite. So two months ago when I started having problems with it, I decided to build a non-lethal .410 load for my judge (just a couple of pencil erasers loaded in a shotcup sealed with candlewax). I don't know if the sound or eraser sting was the kicker, but one shot to the ass and the dog left for greener pastures. When I rode by later, either the dog stayed off the road or the owner chained up the dog. Either way it's a better outcome than swacking a black lab that likes guys on bikes for the wrong reasons. Plus I don't have to file a report with the state.

I do not sit in judgment of your actions, PHBiker.

I have heard of somewhat similar techniques used by bicyclists from yesteryear; water guns filled with carbon tetrachloride or other odious, noxious substance, etc.

I would just say, if anyone plans to follow your example: Should you be CAUGHT, the criminal (and civil) justice system may not be sensitive to your "non-lethal" loads; you shall have discharged a firearm (Legal, in the jurisdiction? If not, you may have just, "Used a Firearm in Commission of a Crime," if the Prosecutor is so inclined.) at someone's PET.

Try this, and you may be singing the chorus to some of the songs Michael Vick learned in prison.

Please note, I do not comment on whether the reaction to someone who would discharge a firearm at a dog as "right," or, "wrong;" "just," or "unjust," only--I'd point out: Shoot a dog, and, as the Dodge commercial southern sheriff said in a memorable TV ad, "Boy, you're in a heap of trouble!"

You may not BE Michael Vick; but--you'll be PLAYED for him!

"HE SHOT MY DOG!!!!!!!!!!"

Reverting to TV allusions, as Desi Arnaz said of Lucy, "You've got some 'splainin' to do!"

I had a problem dog like that, and one shot of pepper spray fix the problem.
After the one shot in the face he would just sit in his yard as I road by.
I keep a can under my faring for the two and four leg pest that might come along.

LoneRider brings up some valid points. Being an animal lover (four dogs and two cats) I agree with the overall philosophy of laws regarding animal cruelty/neglect. That being said, if he lives close to a road, the dog's owner is already in theoretical violation of those laws by allowing his dog to chase cars on the road far more than you were because a dog chasing a motorcyclist is a real threat and, to me, your actions in my mind fall into the realm of "self-defense." You have every right to ride that road without being menaced by a pursuing animal that has the potential to do you great harm were it to cause you to lose control and crash.

Would our effed-up legal/judicial system see it that way? Who knows? I don't see much difference between having to avoid a pursuing dog or, say, the dog's owner standing by the road throwing rocks or chunks of wood at you as you ride by.

To me (others might not feel the same) that means he doesn't really care if the dog gets hit by a car or causes an accident. But, were he to see you shooting even non-lethal loads at the dog and he identified you, I'm sure a great ruckus would ensue featuring you as "the bad guy."

If I were in the same situation (don't you hate when people say that?) I would first file a report with the local sheriff or even the highway department letting them know the pursuing dog is a threat. Would it do any good? Probably not, but if you filed a report, it would be on record.

We recently had an aggressive dog in the neighborhood running loose with the owners away at work. It chased my neighbor down the street and actually tore a piece off the canvas top of his Geo Tracker. I saw the cops over at his house and several of us went over to the Tracker owner's place and threw in our .02 worth so they took it a little more seriously.

Still, the dog continued to roam the neighborhood for hours while they "tried to catch it." I told them point-blank that if the dog came in my yard near the fence and I felt it was a threat to my dogs inside the fence that it could easily get over, that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it. They said, "Feel free to shoot it." I think they were hoping it would happen so I would end the problem and they wouldn't have to deal with it. When I leg my dogs out, I was standing guard over them with a shotgun.

Anyway, though situation you've got there. You have the right to travel the roads without a dog chasing you.

Love your idea of the pencil eraser .410 shell in the Judge, though. That's genius and probably actually safer than the old white trash stand-by we use around here for such purposes: rock salt.

Good idea. I use it all the time and I guarantee you it works on humans. If you had one of those big "bear-sized" cans that look like a small fire extinguisher and were able to deploy it in advance, ready for use, you'd have no problem hosing an animal while moving. Those things shoot like 30 feet.

I don't know if it's true or not, and folks might not even care, but I know they make a special pepper spray formula for dogs. It's less powerful than the human variety, supposedly because it's bad for dogs to get pepper spray in their eyes because they don't have an adequate tear duct system to efficiently flush it out. You'd have to get the spray on the dog's face if it had a lot of fur otherwise it wouldn't reach the skin. If you've never had pepper spray in your eyes, it feels like somebody jabbing an ice pick into them. Can't imagine feeling that for hours.

Just something to think about if you're interested in repelling the dog and not hurting it. The dog tear theory might also just be something dreamed up by the pepper spray makers to try to sell more of it to a niche market.

Pepper spray does work well on dogs. Besides ending the attack, after that one exposure to the spray they won't bother you again.

So, a motorcyclist has the right to use deadly force on a chasing dog?

Hmmm. Would deadly force against someone throwing rocks or wood be justified?

Agree; firing a deadly revolver at a dog (perceived as, "Lassie," not "Cujo") conceivably comprises Using a Firearm in Commission of a Crime, an offense with mandatory jail time in most jurisdictions.

Firing a .410 shell at a dog, in a non-life-threatening or serious injury situation, might be less than genius, IMHO. (The firearm and expended .410 shotshell casing might be entered into evidence; non-lethal? Who says? The defendant, the person who loaded it?)

But, do what you gotta do, Pilgrims! My only caution, weigh the risk-to-gain situation, before you decide to shoot your neighbor's dog.

I'm not insensitive to the moral or legal issues at play here. The last dog I squirted (riding on a bicycle) with water left me alone but the owner decided to chase me down and confront me for "macing" his dog. Water is generally preferred to mace for me because mace can blow back in your face but it was only 44 F on that ride and I have no waterbottle mount on the KLR. Local laws allow the use of deadly force for cases involving the death, serious physical damage, kidnapping or forced sexual penetration of yourself or another. CCW permit holders have an additional requirement to file a report when damage to property or injury occur. The dog in question has attacked bikers besides myself and none of the area children can ride their bikes safely by this house. The owner has been contacted by the Sherrif's department and refuses to secure the dog. I used the eraser load as a last alternative, hoping that I would not have to index the Judge to a lethal chamber. I will tell you, I'm not a "third time's the charm" thinker. As much as I love animals in general and dogs specifically, I'm not losing time at work and getting stitches for any animal without a fight. I've also learned to be wary of dirt-bag animal owners who neglect their animals until they see an opportunity to start a fight.

I have a bird that likes to sit on my wing mirrors while taking a dump. Tried a water gun, bird still came back. What firepower next ?

Again, animal-lover speaking here, so don't take this the wrong way, but at least around here (and I'm guessing everywhere else), CCW/Self-Defense laws apply to humans, not animals. Not to make light of the crime of killing an animal, but if somebody around here were to walk into your yard and shoot your dog just for the hell of it, it would cost them a hell of a lot of money, most likely their guns and would get them a felony record and some probation time, but they wouldn't wind up in jail or prison for it if there were no other laws broken such as endangering other people, etc. Again, I've known dogs that I consider of more value than some people I've met, but there's a big difference between killing a dog and killing a person.

Sure, you'd get in trouble for it, but you wouldn't go to jail for shooting a dog that chased you on the road because here, the owner would be in the wrong for letting his dog onto the road in the first place. Unless you shot the dog in the owner's yard or your shot was directed toward their house, another house, something along those lines, you wouldn't even get any kind of ticket.
Again, it may be different where you live and I suppose this information really does you no good.

The cops would understand that entangling with a dog at highway speeds could result in a serious physical injury or even death. You probably wouldn't even get a "discharging a firearm from a public roadway" ticket.

It all depends on where you live and the mentality of those you co-exist with.

Again, not condoning it, but around here, if a dog was a repeated threat to children riding or walking by and the cops didn't do anything about it, that dog would most likely find an anti-freeze soaked steak tossed into the yard at night.

If the owner cared about the dog, he would control it like I do mine. In this case, if the threat is real, better a dead dog than a mauled child or dead or paralyzed motorcyclist or bicyclist if the owner isn't going to do anything about it.

I guarantee you the police and the judge would all say, "If you wanted to keep your dog safe, you should have kept it from chasing people and motorcycles on the road in the first place. Have a nice day."

You bring up a very good point about the mace blowing back in your face. I hadn't thought of that. Note my description in an earlier post of what that feels like, plus add the fact that your eyelids will instantly slam shut and stay that way, leaving you pretty much blind. It doesn't take much to yield his effect, either.

There's no denying a dog/motorcycle collision can result in serious physical injury or even death to the rider. That's your road and you have a right to ride it.

Any chance of banding up with others with the same complaint and pushing the issue even further with law enforcement/animal control/town hall or do you think it would do any good since the Sheriff's office seems to be too spineless to do anything about it? Any idea what the "leash laws" are around there? I didn't know for a long time that around here a "leash law" basically means nothing since all dog owners everywhere are required to be in control of their dogs at all times whether there's a "leash law" ordinance or not. The ordinance seems more like a friendly reminder. The owner of a dog that causes another harm will not be protected by the "Well, there's no leash law" defense.