Dog language

I've been reading "How to Speak Dog" by Stanley Coren, and there is a lot of interesting things in it (and I just started it!)

Anyway, I mentioned things to my dad about it, and I guess this evening he was on a gun forum that he lurks on. He read a post about a guys wife, and appearintly she lives somewhere in the states, in the country somewhere. She wanted to go to the store I guess, so she took her child and put it in it's stroller, then strapped on her gun. I guess she lives in a bad place??? Anyway..along the way 2 pitt bulls come running at her, showing their teeth and growling.

I guess she put her hand on the gun...I guess to shoot them, but they stopped and rolled on their backs.

This guy said he wanted to go back there with some big gun and wait for them to come running at him so he can blow them away :eek:

How can people not know the simplest of dog language?? I mean, obviously the dogs ment no harm if they rolled on their backs showing their belly...it's the most submissive thing they do, right? Also, dogs show their teeth when they are really submissive as well...so there sweet dogs were just being really submissive...but because one, they are pitts, and 2 these people no know nothing about dogs, they would go and kill 2 perfect, innocent dogs!

I find that so annoying....Appearintly there is no HS in the area to take the dogs, and there owner is in jail. There was 3 dogs, one has been shot...and people who live there feed them...poor things :(

I mean, I don't know that much..I'll admit to that...but I thought some things were obvious? Well I suppose if you've never had a dog.....

:eek: I just don't understand some people. But if they are the kind to strap on a gun to take their child to the store...

I'm reading the same book and I LOVE it!!!
It's sad that some people think they have to go to such extremes. Like you said, rolling on their backs... come on!!! There's no other way to be more submissive!!

I don't know... I think it is quite possible in a 'bad neighborhood' that the pits may have been raised for aggression (they were so submissive and sweet that they were running right at her and growling?? I t could be play behavior, but that's a big chance to take with your baby between them and you) and are abused and mistreated enough to recognize a gun and what it can do. Owning a pit bull mix myself, I understand how much the prejudice hurts and how wonderful these dogs can be. I absolutely trust my Koosty around kids and strangers. But having survived being attacked by a pitbull when I was younger as well, I am only too familiar with how some of these dogs have been beaten, abused and brainwashed into behaving towards strangers. I'm sure that people will question my status as an animal lover for saying this, but that's their choice. All I know is that if I saw any strange animal coming at a dead run at my infant (whether pit bull, french poodle, a chicken, or whatever) my gut reaction would be to protect my baby at least until I could make a good assesment of the animal.

Yes, BUT showing some teeth and even sometimes growling is a sign of submission...My sisters dog does it. She is the sweetest dog. I can tell by looking at her that she is being submissive and not aggressive...I mean, obviously it could mean aggression too, but once they roled over it's pretty obvious they aren't mean dogs....I could see that the lady would do whatever it took to protect her child...but the guy going LOOKING for the dogs JUST to kill them is dumb

Did he do it? Nope... I think he is just blowing steam off. And I've owned dogs for my whole life, and I've never yet seen one where running straight at you growling was a sign of submission. Growling on its own can be, but not growling with teeth bared while running at you. Also, showing submission does not mean they were sweet dogs. Waaaaaay too many dogs are taught to submit like that out of fear (especially of something they recognize as a weapon, i.e. a gun), not out of proper training and a desire to please. Also, do you know for a fact (since you say/strongly suggest it several times in the first post) that both of the people involved had no experience with dogs at all, and had no clue how to interpret their body language? Maybe she put on her gun BECAUSE she knew she might run into these pitbulls... it sounds like they have been running amok for some time. If these dogs have been running free in the neighborhood harassing people and other animals, and there is no HS in the area to take care of them, I wouldn't personally blame the guy too much for having the urge to stop the problem by killing the dogs, though I don't think that is really the best solution.
If we want people to take us seriously about what sweet little lovers bully breeds can be and how wrong bans are, I don't think we can effectively do so by pretending that there aren't pits and amstaffs and the like that have been abused and brainwashed into being deadly to humans. Ignoring/denying the real problem (bully breed abusers) only fuels the fears and paranoia of the 'other side'. Not all pits are sweet babies, and they have an enormous physical ability to do harm. Fighting the prejudice doesn't mean pretending to be ignorant of the truth. Mocking and undermining people who have had negative experiences with pits feeds in to the bans. You can't change someone's mind by undermining their fears.
Do you know the cirsumstances under which the third dog was shot?