I don't believe it, but then I read leerburg 's stuff and it had a line below
' If you own any dog, but especially a dog that has had the smallest amount of aggression or protection training it is your moral and legal obligation to make sure that you do everything possible to ensure that your dog is never in a situation where it could bite a child.'
I guess I'm wondering why he said that and I'm wondering if I'm wrong in thinking this means that a dog that had protection training changes in some way.
I'd do IPO if I can find a club that picks up the phone so I don't believe this. But would like to know why he said this.
ETA he said this while talking about a case of a woman whose protection trained rots killed a child. She wasn't a responsible owner though