I recognize that, and it's the reason I find this test odd. They allow for the reality of type and training in the testing, but then they pretend that the tests are an equal, fair evaluation of all breeds in general. This is ludicrous. Either you test them evenly, which means that you're going to inevitably be working against some dogs, or you admit that testing fairly within the breed/type/training is going to return results that make it look as if Filas were
equal to a Golden in terms of having a good temperament. Which may be true, but there's considerably more there to be explained, which is why I dislike seeing temperament tests used to 'prove' the worth of breeds.
And I also find some of their testing to be skewed toward the more sedate breeds, and unpersuasive. When did it become a major test of a good dog that they would not be reactive? I realize that many people involved in temperament debates these days are passionate defenders of the rather stolid mastiff types, and I'm a fan of the highly excitable collies and terriers, so I'm a little prejudiced here. But I've seen way too many non-reactive dogs who were highly aggressive to be convinced that the calmer the dog, the safer he/she is.
