You can say any dog is violent. My fiance has a scar across her face from a Shepard, family pet, I have multiple scars from labs spaniels and retrievers, and my dads miniature dachshund. You cannot simply label a breed violent. Any animal has the capability of being so. For crying out loud my moms cows were more dangerous then any of my three pits ever were!!
PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THEE BREED!!

PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED!!

American staffordshire terriers are the AKC recognized breeds. American pit bull terriers are the UKC regognized breed. Two different kennel clubs. The Am staff was not a bull baiter because the Am staff was once the same breed as the APBT. In fact, my AKC book mentions it having once been known as the pit bull and the pit bull terrier. When pit bull fanciers tried to get the AKC to recognize the APBT, they refused. Saying they didn’t want to register a breed with pit bull in its name so they wouldn’t be associated with dog fighting. The same way they won’t register labradoodles today because they don’t want to be associated with puppy mills. They stood by their decision. That is, until Pete the Pup (who was an American pit bull, btw) became stuff of legend. They then decided to accept the breed, however, under a different name: American staffordshire terrier. (Pete was one of the first duel registered “pit bulls”) For this reason, teh American staffordshire and the APBT have almost IDENTICAL histories. Gee, I wonder why? They are both”pit bulls” however, the American staffordshire terrier is not even close to the APBT. Not anymore. The APBT has been bred for working purposes, the am staff for show. Creating a completely different look between the two breeds. The Am staff is bigger, the APBT is smaller.

Little dogs only have “attitude problems” because many owners spoil them and treat them like accessories. Sadly, giving them a bad reputation. But, even they should have a sweet temperament, believe it or not. Rowdy, yes. Loud, some of them. Aggressive? Unacceptable according to breed standard.

Pit bulls are not human aggressive because they were bred to be human friendly. Would you want to handle an aggressive dog?

Also, if you think about it, Dachshunds were bred to take down badgers. Have you ever SEEN a badger? They’re not little. Jack Russels are terriers, too. Most terriers have been bred to take down other animals. Many of the hunters have taken down large prey. Including… *GASP*… POODLES!

Also, if you’re referring to bull baiting, that would be bulldogs. Not pit bulls. Do your research. Yes, pit bulls were bred to hunt wild boar- but, so were many other breeds that have reputations as family dogs. In fact, bulldogs are about the most mellow freakin’ dogs you could own and they were originally bred to take down BULLS! BULLS for dogs sake!

You insult the intelligence of canines. They can tell the difference between a dog and a human and a cat and a bird. APBT’s were NOT bred to take down humans in the pit. So this ridiculous rumor that they were bred to be aggressive is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. They were bred to be friendly. You try training an aggressive dog to take down a wild boar. See how far it gets ya.

I never said that they were ‘vicious’ or ‘dangerous’, just that they were not a proper dog for a first time dog owner (neither are APBT, for that matter), nor the best dog for someone with children.

Akitas have not been bred with the same tendency towards following people blindly as APBT and AmStaffs have (as, you’ll notice, I’ve said before). They are a much more independent and free thinking dog which, a lot of times, don’t care to have children around.

Your parents obviously took the time to make the dog understand that you were someone to be respected and tolerated. This is something that pitties, for the most part, do not need to learn. Talk to most other Akita owners, and they will tell you similar things. Also, I’m just assuming that your parents got a puppy Akita and did not adopt a fully grown one. As with most breeds, if they’re raised around children, they tend to tolerate them.

Again, I never said anything to an Akita’s detriment. I love and respect the breed. I’m just saying that they are more independent and less people oriented than pitties.

It’s been 20 years and three dogs later, and I still have never found another dog as sweet and devoted as Bobby was. I still miss him

My family got an akita when I was 4. He was big, strong, and territorial. He was also the most patient and loyal creature I’ve ever known. He put up with years of my childish nonsense–playing with his ears, pulling his tail, trying to ride him, and generally being a pest–with rarely even a growl. He kept a close eye on any stranger who came into the house, but if we were OK with them, so was he. I have no doubt that he would have fought to the death anyone who attacked one of us, but that’s probably true of my dad too, and he’s not “vicious” or “dangerous.”

Whoops, typed too fast and defaulted to a specific ‘their’.

Humans don’t have control over whether or not they feel angry. They do, however, have control over how they react to that situation. Case in point, customers annoy, upset and anger me everyday. How do I deal with it? By smiling and nodding and helping them with whatever problem they might have. Human beings have ways of not letting their emotions get the best of them, dogs don’t come with that kind of wiring.

“The responsible pet owners on this board have a serious bone to pick with you – you’re claiming that dogs are an extreme hazard that shouldn’t be allowed in anyone’s home.” – Nope, never said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And, by the way, dogs are incapable of being either good or bad – that’s human based morality and does not apply to animals.

“If a dog were incapable of deciding “This short human keeps pulling my tail, which hurts, but I’ll be patient with it for now,” child fatalities would reach epic proportions instead of being rare exceptions.” – Dogs are capable of thinking of children as members of their pack, but only if introduced as such. In a pack, puppies are allowed to crawl on, bite and annoy the living daylights out of the older animals to a point. I never said dogs weren’t incapable of making decisions, I just said that they went about it in a different method than humans did. If you disagree with this statement, then you are more of a danger with a dog than someone who understands that dogs are *animals* and not human beings.

There’s more than one way to lie, as you just demonstrated. I didn’t say you didn’t copy it. What I said was that you deliberately copied the second and third definitions, and claimed they were the primary and secondary definitions. You deliberately chose to not copy the primary definition because it flew in the face of your claims.

“emotions that humans (and dogs) have no control over.”

We all have emotions, and most of us have some modicum of control over them. I guess you don’t, and are projecting onto others? But that does make it even more funny that you then turn around and call me irrational for disagreeing with you.

Try using the defense in court that humans have no control over their emotions of anger, vexment, etc, and therefore it’s not your fault that you tried to rip someone’s face off. Come back and let us know how that worked.

But back to the subject, dogs – they’re completely incapable of being good or bad, deciding to bite or not bite, they just react to stimuli a la Pavlov’s experiment?

The responsible pet owners on this board have a serious bone to pick with you – you’re claiming that dogs are an extreme hazard that shouldn’t be allowed in anyone’s home. That’s not true, but that is the logical conclusion your assertions lead to. If a dog were incapable of deciding “This short human keeps pulling my tail, which hurts, but I’ll be patient with it for now,” child fatalities would reach epic proportions instead of being rare exceptions.

I’m honestly not trying to bash you as a parent or you as a dog owner in any way, but I strongly believe that no child should be left alone with any dog before a certain age simply for safety reasons.

The same rule applies for pretty much any animal and any child: I know of a baby that was removed from a home because the ferret that was owned by the parents got out of its cage somehow in the middle of the night and mauled the baby before the parents could get to him.

The connotation of provoke is not that of the older definitions, but that of the first one. It arouses sympathy to say that someone was provoked into an attack; it arouses no sympathy to say that they decided (whether the decision was rational or irrational) to attack. You know this, which is why you persist in using the word “provoked” instead of “led to” or something similarly neutral. It makes them sound like innocent victims.

Dogs are not helpless unthinking creatures who are forced to respond to stimuli a la Pavlov’s experiment, they make decisions just as you or I do.

* Main Entry: pro·voke
* Pronunciation: \prə-ˈvōk\
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): pro·voked; pro·vok·ing
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French *provoker, provocher, from Latin provocare, from pro- forth + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at pro-, voice
* Date: 14th century

1 a archaic : to arouse to a feeling or action b : to incite to anger
2 a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : evoke b : to stir up purposely c : to provide the needed stimulus for

Dogs are not rational or irrational, they attack when provoked. The source of provocation can be anything. I have a lady with a Shiba Inu mix in one of my classes and her dog used to try and attack anyone and anything around her when she smelled cigarette smoke. We soon figured out that she did this because she once smelled cigarette smoke and then a rock got kicked up off the road and smacked her hard in the head forming what is known in the dag training world as a superstitious connection.

Anyone smoking around the dog provoked her, but they were not aware of it. The dog saw it as a perfectly legit reason to attack, though.

And your ‘simplification’ should be “dogs only attack when given a reason to attack” as dogs don’t just randomly decide ‘Oh hey, that person looks tasty – I shall go attack them!’

Animal attacks happen because people are stupid and either provoke or improperly care for their dogs. And exposing pitties to children early would make them even safer, since they may actually learn how to deal with them.

AKA- FailBLOG Fail.

Such as “walking by when the dog was hungry and in a pack of its wild buddies.” Or “getting between a high-strung dog and the cat it wants to kill.” (I don’t think those mesh very well with your desired implications, though.)

But that definition fails because it’s utterly circular logic. Simplify “dogs only attack when provoked” + “provocation is anything which the dog decides is a reason to attack,” and you get “dogs only attack if they decide to attack.”

But not if you use the connotative definition of “provoked,” i.e. “did something which a normal person (not ‘an expert or a psychic’) should understand could make a normal dog (not ‘a hyper-aggressive dog’) believe they’re trying to harm it.” If you believe all dog attacks meet that criterion except in cases of Springer Rage, I have some prime beachfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Some animal control officers can’t tell the difference between a working Lab and a pit bull.

Really.

For large values of 1, and in synergistic systems.

Also, the only UNPROVOKED dog attacks are in cases of Springer Rage, which is a neural disorder found in some breeds of spaniels.

I don’t think I can count you as any sort of dog person if you don’t know that no attack is really unprovoked, and especially if you can’t separate dog aggression from human aggression. :/

And I agree completely, but I’ve heard way too many pit owners claim something akin to “My neighbor’s dog doesn’t even get picked up by animal control when it’s running loose, so it’s not fair that they’re taking away my pit bull that’s been repeatedly caught running loose.”

Lowest-common-denominator rationalizations don’t speak too well of anyone’s sense of responsibility.