30 plus years of experience gets overwritten by anecdotal evidence given by highly educated and historied redneck dogfighters? I could be wrong, in which case prove it to me. But so far it just sounds like "Hey, billybob. Why yall cut their ears? Uhh, so the other dog ain't got nuttin to bite. That might be a benefit, but you saying that's the only reason hasn't been backed up. Hell I'd think an ear would be as much to hold on to as a wet paper bag In a fight.
But You're dismissing someone who has actually studied the history and spent decades in the field just because. My whole point, however, was to show that temperament and traits were what they were bred for. That doesn't mean they're all killing machines, but given the right environment or upbringing they are more likely to display those behaviors than certain other breeds.
Not acknowledging that is stupid, especially if your only reference is my buddy says or I had a pit once and he was awesome therefore pits have the same genes as other dogs.
It's like the guy that found out he had the sociopath gene...doesn't mean he's a serial killer, but had his upbringing been different he would have had a greater chance of becoming one...and he DID display a lot of those traits common to sociopaths.
The bottom line is one does in fact have to raise a pit bull differently than other breeds, because they are different.
All that being said, it does seem like prior to 1980 pit bull attacks were pretty much unheard of, or at least on pay with other attacks...since I've seen this from multiple sources, including the douche who spent his life studying dogs, I'm going to assume this is accurate, and that the cause of the sudden rise isn't a simple one reason answer.
Also, all you who say bullshit to breeding for fighting, but breeding to remove human aggression is true. ..your bias is pretty pathetically transparent.
Fyi, I own two dogs, one part terrier and one hound/shepherd mix...both of which would be on most restricted lists.
