The comment was:
how it's possible to train a dog to kill other dogs without training it to be aggressive and dangerous in general
My point is that you can train a dog to be aggressive towards other dogs, and it not be aggressive towards everything. What is your point? I did not say it wasn't bred to protect. Many would argue that pits were "nanny dogs" bred to protect children. I have no idea if that's true, but I do know that they go haywire often and seemingly easily. So my point is, you can train them to be aggressive without problem. I still stand by that and your comment about what they're trained to do still follows along with what I said.
I have zero reading comprehension when I'm drinking, please disregard my ramblings lol
Many would argue that pits were "nanny dogs" bred to protect children.
Then why were they so commonly used as pit fighting dogs and why aren't they called "nanny bulls"?
Many would argue that pits were "nanny dogs" bred to protect children. I have no idea if that's true, but I do know that they go haywire often and seemingly easily.
As I said, many would argue. I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that it is possible to train a dog to be aggressive without them being aggressive to everything, or to gradually becomes aggressive to things they're not supposed to.
Pitts are terribly aggressive at the things they are trained to be aggressive at and seem to have a proclivity towards easily associating that behavior with things not intended to be aggressive towards or progressively giving themselves permission to be. The sad truth is that we will not know if they have always been this way, as we only know what they are like now. Whether that is a result of back yard breeding for fighting, or if they've always been like that, who knows.
I personally have no trust for them. I do not want them as a pet. It's not the owner, it's the breed.
(post is archived)