I do not understand why you recommend the part I underlined. Isn’t this a situation the human wants to establish dominance? In the first paragraph, I presume you’re staring the dog in eyes when giving the “sit” command. When that doesn’t work, you embiggen yourself to increase your dominance. Staring helps that.
Now if you wanted to try a friendlier approach, you’d crouch a little, use a light and friendly voice, slightly gesture “come here”, and look down. That signals submission and play.
You don’t establish dominance by having a staring contest. You do that by being bigger, or a better food provider, or even being the determiner of when it is time to play. Most dogs automatically defer to any humans present, unless they are deliberately or very poorly trained not to.
Trying to stare down a strange dog is unlikely to calm it any, and is more likely to cause it to increase its aggression.
One other thing, and not just in this context, if you reach your hand out to a dog, make a loose fist, fingers slightly curled, then bring your hand up under the dog’s nose with your palm towards the dog. Then you can probably scratch the side of its muzzle, go on from there. Never reach over the dog to pet its head or ears unless you know it well.
This.
The vast majority of training problems that I see are not that the dog doesn’t know how to behave, it is that the owner doesn’t know how to communicate their desires to the dog.
Dogs want to please you. We’ve bred them that that is their greatest goal in life, to please a human they call master. The exceptions to this are very rare, and involve serious brain trauma or disease.
But then, the human neglects their half of the deal, and refuses to give the dog good direction on what is pleasing. So, the dog guesses, or acts out of frustration. Many times, if you do not assert yourself as the dominate one in the relationship (and that doesn’t mean physically dominating or beating the dog in any way, just that you are the one doing discipline and training), then the dog thinks that it must be its job to be the one in charge.
And they crave attention. If you beat your dog, it will prefer that to you ignoring it. So, if the only time you pay attention to your dog is to punish it for bad behavior, it will continue with that bad behavior, because it gets the reward of you paying attention to it. I can think of very few situations where a dog needs to be physically punished for behavior (pretty much only if it is attacking another animal or human). Praising the good and ignoring the undesired behavior is the way to go.
Most people think their dogs are friendly to humans in most to almost any situation, and most dogs actually are. So ‘nobody’ realistically assessing their dog’s temperament is a major overstatement IMO. Many people fail to realistically assess behavior/temperament problems of the small % of dogs with potentially dangerous problems in that regard, OK. And on the last statement it’s only true even of most cases (nothing is true in every case) if you modify to, “most owners of dogs which seriously injure or kill people claim they were ‘good dogs’ after the fact”. People try to cover their asses. Which has been one source of media/pop hysteria over the changing ‘bad’ breeds of any particular decade. ‘The owners always say they’re nice til…’, yeah owners of dogs which already attacked somebody say they thought that. And owners of the vastly greater number of (rotating) ‘bad breed’ dogs which haven’t, and never will, also say so. Proving nothing about ‘breed temperament’.
Since the discussion mainly moved from ‘pit bull’ there have been some interesting posts from POV ‘what do you do?’ in the face of big hostile dogs. But on the posts from POV of training dogs, I still think they tend to miss part of the point. Which though I don’t agree with your exact wording is along the lines of what you said. Lots of people are knuckleheads. They can’t follow training instructions even if they intend to. Many don’t intend to. And there’s a fair amount of significantly differing if not contradictory advice as well from dog experts.
And, the missives about training also overlook some basic factors in dog aggression toward humans. Breed, as a causal factor, isn’t one according to any scientific study. But sex is. People who know dogs sometimes don’t want to go along with spay/neuter for their dogs because they know what they’re doing. But 80-90% of cases of dogs seriously injuring or killing people involve unfixed males. A large proportion involve multiple dogs. That’s even more sensitive, because many ‘real dog people’ think you have to have several dogs to be one. But it’s a risk factor, more complicated interaction among humans and dogs. And big strong dogs are a factor, though that’s somewhat mitigated by people’s typically different reaction to big v small dogs (for example people are probably more likely to make the mistake of leaving little kids and a dog unsupervised when it’s a little dog). And some other risk factors are more roundly condemned, like making a dog into an outdoor burglar alarm you pay as much attention to day to day as a mechanical alarm. But the whole problem, obscured by breed hysteria, is that many people do these risk-increasing things, and they have the right to do them until something really bad happens.
It may be the rescue worker in me, but THIS. Unless you’re planning to breed the dog, in which case it had better look like a champion from the moment it pops out, fix the damn dog. It works wonders for aggression, for both sexes, towards humans AND dogs. I don’t care that you “know what you’re doing”, my position is to do what is necessary for everyone’s ease. Doing otherwise is horribly irresponsible, and there’s more than one life affected by that decision.
In response to the OP, others have said everything that needs said, depending on the temperament of the dogs coming towards you.
If they’re growling and barking, charging with teeth showing, ears pinned back, and hackles up - get bigger, get louder, and say a little prayer to the Hundred Little Gods just in case it doesn’t work. If it comes to a fight, keep your feet underneath you and be willing to sacrifice the flesh on your forearms to cuts and slashes and punctures to stay standing and moving towards something that you can put between you and the dogs. If you fall down, it’s over - all the vital parts are at teeth level.
If they’re not any of those things, just running up to you, be as friendly as you feel comfortable being, while staying alert for those signs of anger or fear that will presage an attack, however unlikely it may be. No matter how friendly a strange dog is, it’s still a stranger, and you don’t know it. You don’t need to be afraid, you need to be aware. Dogs don’t bite without cause or warning.
In spoiler tags because it is a bit of an unpleasant video. (And the comments are worse.)
Anyway, here is a situation where dogs are running up to a stranger (utility worker), and it seems to me that they mean him no harm.
This guy was not as well versed in dog behavior, and didn’t have much time to assess the situation either, so he hit them with what he had in his hand, a pipe wrench.
If he had done nothing, they would have come up, sniffed him, maybe licked him a bit, but very unlikely they would have bitten or mauled.
Though I think he was wrong to do so, I also cannot fault him for his actions. His training does not include determining the threat level of strange dogs approaching quickly, but it is something that some of us can try to aspire to.
Point of my post is that it is much more likely that you are misunderstanding the dog’s intent than the dog meaning you harm.
Several years as a meter-reader, and a few more as a UPS driver have taught me a few things about dogs. Here is my experience.
Always carry a weapon. Period. The best is a medium sized wrench (I use a Crescent with a plastic grip. I keep one of these accessible during all walks. The very fact that you have it, and the confidence you present as you step forward to bludgeon the animal, is the thing that will end the fight. Seriously – dogs are very attuned to human fear and emotion and your aggressive response will end the vast majority of fights before they begin.
If the attack continues, make your strike as vicious as possible. This isn’t a time for mercy. IME, one savage hit will end the encounter.
Ignoring the situation presented by the OP, most dog encounters occur in either the city or the 'burbs. I always told my kids if confronted by dangerous dogs, just hop into the bed of the nearest pickup truck. You’ll be safe there until help comes. (Seriously, in Texas it’s hard to get more than 20 feet from a pickup truck).
Possibly an unpopular opinion ahead: Your loving pit bulls might be good with children and wouldn’t hurt a fly. I am sure you love your dogs. Keep them in your fenced yard or on a leash, as the law requires, and they will be there to love and cherish your children and the flies in your yard will be safe.
I am not going to give your two threatening dogs of whatever breed the benefit of the doubt. I am not going to stand still and try to make friends, nor am I going to try to get them to "sit’ or “stay”. I am going to shoot them.
In the OP’s scenario, he is in a field. He does not say who’s field he is in. If the dogs belong in that field, and you do not, you going to shoot them?
The OP did not specify who owns the field. Regardless, how is one to determine whether an aggressive dog on the attack belongs where he is? it is as likely that the attacking animal is a feral stray, and possible rabid. I live in the city. It is illegal to let your dog run loose where I live. Like I said: I would not give the dog the benefit of the doubt.
First, determine if you belong where you are.
Doubtful it is a “feral stray”, and it is even more unlikely to be rabid. It also has not yet attacked yet in this scenario, just heading towards you from across a field.
Other people live in other places where it is legal to have your dog run loose. If you are in your city, then you ca follow the laws of your city to deal with the situation.
If you are in a place that does allow dogs to roam freely, then shooting dogs for roaming freely would not be an appropriate reaction.
If I had access to gun and the wherewithal to aim and shoot and hit 2 dogs, I don’t think I could do it. I had to shoot a coyote awhile back and it caused me to be physically ill. I know, I know that is just stupid. If my life was in actual danger of being taken, maybe I would feel different. If my child was in danger, no question. But, I would never be carrying a gun just on a walk in a field.
My username is not ironic. I really do care quite a bit about dogs and their welfare.
Same time, I have no problem with injuring or even killing a dog that is definitely presenting a threat of severe bodily harm or death to myself or others. I have skills that I think would lower my chances that things would come to that, I think that deescalating and understanding the situation is infinitely better than just killing the dog because you couldn’t understand its intent, but if it comes to it, I also have skills in fending off and fighting dogs that can be utilized to that end if need be.
I used to run cross country (hard to believe, as I can barely run cross house anymore), and I’d get chased by neighborhood dogs for miles. I’ve been bit by dogs a few times, as a kid I once was doing a bike trick that ended with my flying off into someone’s yard, startling their dog to where it bit me, once, on the leg. I was a utility worker for a while, and got a couple of minor bites from dogs there too, fortunately, I wore heavy clothes, so they didn’t really get a purchase on my ankle.
Couple dogs coming at me from across a field? Something that I would stay aware of, but not something that would cause me to freak out and start shooting.
I wonder what, assuming legal carry, the legality is of shooting a loose dog who is not in the actual process of attacking but is interpreted as “threatening” and by build and appearance looks “vicious”?
My WAG is that such would get an animal cruelty charge and likely a negligent discharge of a firearm one too. But we have real legal types here who may know.
I read an article (which, of course, makes me an expert) that advised what to do if a dog charges. Months later, I was out for a walk in a semi-rural neighborhood and got lost. (Cue ominous soundtrack.) Somehow I unwittingly turned from the path onto a private drive. The clue was “Beware of Dog” signs all over the place. Almost immediately a big dog came barreling toward me, snarling and barking, clearly in full Cujo mode. (Tail high and rigid, hackles up.) I stood my ground, legs wide, hands on hips. I did not make eye contact. I spoke in a low, calm, firm voice. Dog stopped in its tracks and after barking a few times to show he meant business, left.
The dog was a Doberman, not a pit bull, aka Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The Dobermans I’ve known have largely coasted on their reputations and were apt to cower at a menacing butterfly, but dogs vary in temperament within a breed, including SBT’s. It’s not that the SBT BREED is bred to be vicious; it’s that line breeding has led to some dogs within the breed to be aggressive, and people figure an aggressive SBT is more of a threat than a vicious dachshund. Unfair to gentle SBT’s? Absolutely. Totally irrational? Probably not.
I assumed that, for the sake of the discussion, the dogs were in the process of attacking. Just a couple of pit bulls walking in an open field are not a threat. An attacking dog, pit bull or not is a legitimate threat and target.
The scenario described in the OP only has them “coming towards me”. The only part of them being aggressive or vicious is the OP’s description of them being “vicious pitbulls” and “do not look happy”, things that the OP is only assuming, as to be honest, even a trained dog handler would have difficulty telling these things about strang dogs from across a field.
The OP never had them attacking.
Of course, if dogs are actually attacking, then do what you need to do to make them stop. Human life and limb is more important than a dog’s life.
This was my point all along. I guess I just assumed facts not contained in the OP.
Staffordshire Bull Terrier is one of three breeds it’s generally agreed it’s accurate to call ‘pit bull’. It’s the smallest. The more common and larger variants are the similar looking and sized American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier. But very few dogs you’d come across running around loose are pure breeds of any kind. It’s arguable whether other related breeds (American Bulldog, American Bully, etc) are correctly called ‘pit bulls’ but same goes for them. And every test of average people’s ability to distinguish among breeds of dogs with blockish heads, short fur and muscular bodies, assuming they actually are of one breed, shows they can’t.
Then the dachshund comparison doesn’t work wrt the actual point. Nobody argues, or should, that little dogs are as potentially dangerous in general as big strong dogs (though again SBT is a marginal example of a ‘big strong dog’, typically muscular but 38lbs max for males per AKC standard). The point is the complete lack of mainstream science saying that breed, let alone general appearance, is a causal factor in dog aggression to humans. So it is in fact irrational to assume greater danger from unknown big strong dogs of one appearance v big strong dogs of another appearance except insofar as the context implies something about probable owner behavior.
So for example if it’s in an open field between low socio econ and a high socio econ suburban subdivisions, the type of dog might correlate to some degree with which side it came from, and owner behavior which creates dangerous dogs tends to be more common further down than up the economic scale. Estimating on that basis wouldn’t be wholly irrational like it would be to assume friendly/unfriendly based on breed or appearance itself for dogs of a given size/strength, but still a fairly weak inference. Knowledge of how dogs show by body language whether or not they are favorably inclined to a person would be a much better way to judge, if you know.
Kobe Bryant wasn’t in a low socio/econ area and he had ‘pit’ type dogs. I don’t trust that logic. I am not gonna stop and ask the dog if he is from a poor household or a well off house, before the perceived attack.
