[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I bred and still own three. Pits are the most loyal, loving, goofy, sweet and awesome breed you’ll ever come across. People forget (or never knew) that Pits were Americas dog during the first half of the century. The problem has nothing to do with the dogs. It’s entirely on the shoulders of the owner(s). [/quote]
So the dog’s ability to inflict damage has nothing to do with the dog?
[/quote]
Not even remotely close to what I said. Pits are alphas. Strong, fast, incredibly bright and naturally aggressive. If you train to accentuate that aggressiveness, they’re terminators. If you train 'em with love, respect, loyalty and positive/negative reinforcement, they’re teddy bears. I agree 100% that there needs to be a screening process with the “aggressive” breeds. Last thing I want to see is another hoodrat putting an innocent dog through hell so he can line his pockets.
[/quote]
Actually you wrote, The problem has nothing to do with the dogs. Which it does, the dog’s strength and power makes it more of a threat.
Just to clarify, I am not for regulation of what breeds of dogs people can possess.
[/quote]
There are a ton of breeds with strength and power - is that a problem for all of those breeds as well? [/quote]
In the hands of an inattentive irresponsible owner absolutely. It’s asinine when people pretend like their dogs aren’t capable of violence.
[/quote]
This was exactly WF’s point. It’s not the dog, it’s the owner.
[/quote]
We’re going to have to agree to disagree here.