Originally Posted by
Sara'n'Scout
On another dog forum I'm on, we're discussing whether or not dogs who are DA are born that way. The OP has posted, since she cant rehab her DA dog (she's done amazing things with him so far, but he'll never be normal), that some dogs must be born hardwired for DA, as in there's something wrong with their brains. She believes that Cesar has brainwashed people into believeing that all DA is the fault of owners... which I dont agree with either. But I dont believe that she's right either.
IF she is right that some dogs are born DA, with no symptoms of aggression to anything else, I would think that it's a very, VERY small number of dogs.
I truly believe that DA is triggered. A dog may be born prone to it, but something triggers it (be it something we do, or something another dog does, or a combo). If a dog was born with something wrong with it's brain that causes DA, wouldn't that dog also be aggressive towards people and other animals?
I told her I'd be doing this, and I also told her that I'd do more research, and would be willing to conceed a point if I felt it valid, but so far, she hasn't changed my mind. She is considering it a personality in and of itself, such as a dog being born shy...
I've argued my points, which she replies to only certain points and takes my points out of context and seems to not be getting what I'm saying at all, though others understand my theories, points and observations quite well, so I thought I'd ask you all what you think.... see if I'm right out to lunch.
So what do you all think?
Most dogs used to be bred to fulfil a function. They were genetically engineered by us to occupy the roles we wished them to take:
Herder
Flock Guardian
Hunter
Pointer
Retriever
Protection
Ratter
Earth Dogs
Etc etc and, unfortunately fighting dogs.
We selected the “gamest” specimens and bred them in order that we could entertain ourselves with the sport of dog fighting.
Why are some dogs more predisposed to being (insert relevant behaviour) than others, because we have bred some things IN and some things OUT.
Beagles, Foxhounds, Bloodhounds etc are famous for being NOT DA. Why? Because they were bred to live in packs so harmony was and is essential. This is not an accident and soleley a product of nurture, but selection.
Dogs that are bred to fight are a product of both natural and human selection. Dogs that survive pass on their genes (for fighting) to the next generation.
There is a developmental environment factor as well of course which will affect how those genetic factors are expressed and if they are actively encouraged or not.
You can “breed” shy dogs by not socialising them, keeping them in sterile environments etc. The same is true for DA dogs.
Included in the developmental environment factor will be the reactions of both people and dogs to the dog in question as these ALSO “teach” dogs to be people and/or dog aggressive.
We have discussed this on this forum before; ie fearful responses of people to a perceived aggressive breed. This is one reason I underline the importance of getting these breeds (GSD, Dobe, Rott etc) out on the floor ASAP in controlled situations so that they do not learn (and dogs learn 24/7) inappropriate responses through no fault of their own.
As Coppinger says,
can you train the dog not to be aggressive once it has learned to be? Probably not satisfactorily.
What is or is not deemed "satisfactory" will depend on the individual and context of course
Coppinger also states that we do not have good ethological definitions of behaviours such as aggression. Is it a unitary behaviour starting in one centre of the brain? We do not know.
Of course some dogs with good genes can overcome poor developmental environments ie the shy dog can blossom, the fighting dog be a good citizen however…………
IMHO you have to remember what the “default” setting is for that dog and, in times of stress, that a dog will revert to the behaviour which was successful in its first expression combined with its genetic response.
So it is not a GIVEN that ANY dog in the right environment will be “fine” neither is the converse true.
The other thing to remember is that the dog may be mentally unstable and just not be “wired up” right, after all we accept this occurs in people, so why should dogs be any different?
We know that dogs that are dog aggressive are not, ipso facto aggressive to people and vice versa. IMHO this is not solely due to particular "triggers"
There are for example certain breeds which are more prone to kill and eat their offspring but they are often fine with people.
It could be argued that birth was the trigger for this, or that the birth itself triggered an abnormal response in the brain which then expressed itself in the cannibalism.
One of the key issues I have with the "there is no such thing as a bad dog" brigade is that puts an intolerable level (IMHO) of guilt on to some dog owners.
I know I have seen dogs (and owned one) that did not have anything that you could put your finger on in terms of genetics or environment that you could say "caused" their behaviour; they were just, for want of a better expression, unpredictably dangerous and no amount of behaviour modification could SATISFACTORILY make that dog safe; some of these were fine with dogs, some with people but in those cases you could not say eg "dog like this because it had bad experience with dog/people" to put it simplistically.