Historically speaking...there never was a such thing as "bait" dogs. That term was contrived by the AR...kind of a viscious cycle.
Ultimately, as a stated before, unless you were there to see how the scars were obtained...it's nothing but speculation at best. There's absolutely no way that you can say that dog was intentionally matched against another dog, unless you were there. It's called jumping to a conclusion without all, or in this case, very little facts. Kevin is exactly right....that is exactly what the AR does, and would do.
Im not an AR by defination, but I do think anyone who would fight a dog is a POS. I am a hog hunter and knowing Josh I would say if he says someone used the dog for fighting that is what happened, it almost sounds as if you are defending dog fighters I also believe if its his thread he can jump to conclusions or speculate all he wants to. He gave the facts (as HE saw them) who can question that? and why would anyone question it except to stir the pot!
