Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting>
Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
deleted by creator
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
deleted by creator
You didn’t even quote a full sentence, so yes it’s out of context. That’s how quoting things out of context works.
deleted by creator
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
deleted by creator
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
deleted by creator
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
You should probably actually go read what the rest is bud