A fact from Attack dog appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 11,400 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
§== Merge: Attack Dogs vs. Guard Dogs ==
The difference is merely semantical. The two articles should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.28.105 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ≥
The purpose of an "attack" dog is to protect. Protection is a trait that most of us would consider beneficial; however, it has a potentially adverse side. All dogs have the urge to protect, regardless of their breed or training. I suggest this ought to be the core proposition of the article: if nothing else, it would help balance the article's neutrality and clarify its direction.
Attacking is just one way of accomplishing the dog's main goal, and "attacks" do not have to include injury. A person tripped and pinned by a large dog will probably consider himself attacked; a person barked at by a large dog with raised hackles might consider herself threatened with an attack. (I imagine the spy captured by Sergeant Stubby - the most decorated canine in the US military - would agree!)
I also think that making an example of certain breeds of dogs as attack dogs is not a good way of maintaining neutrality in this article, unless the positive side of their breeding and training is presented as well. For example, Pit Bulls were originally trained to protect farmers from charging bulls. They were bred for strength and tenacious grip, but also for extreme loyalty to humans: so much so that they were long considered to be the ideal family dog!
Finally, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between "attacking" and "fighting".
I hope my observations help! Miss Jaster (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Miss Jaster
Merge into Dog training —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Traqueto (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Attack dog isn't equal to a dog trained to attack? I only see three paragraphs in this article. Almost a stub. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Traqueto (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- --
Calamitybrook (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The article says 10% of dogs involved in an attack can be attributed to dogs that have received attack dog training. The citation is United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on the Environment (1976). Animal Welfare Improvement Act of 1975: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the Committee on Commerce. United States Government, 111. “Nearly 10 per cent of the dogs that have bitten people have received attack dog training.” This statistic and the context of the citation are unclear with respect to whether or not this statement is politically influenced or based upon some study. For such a strong statement, I think any studies cited should be a bit more specific.Organ.donor (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)