With all this dog about "animal aggression" I have to ask?

First, let me clear up one thing. Though there are many TYPES of aggression it is still AGGRESSION. Just like there are many types of Cancer but it is STILL Cancer.

It doesn't matter WHAT kind of aggression the dog has. It is aggression. We can break it down into 2 dozen different categories but it still comes down to aggression, no matter the *trigger*.

There are breeds of dogs that go back in history much farther than others. This is the reason why a dog breed is essentially 175 years old and the breeding became exclusive by introducing much OLDER breeds into the genetic pool and kept changing the genetics so the dogs being bred finally have the genetics the breeders wanted. You have to remember decades ago there was little to nothing a farmer/rancher had to protect/guard/watch their main source of food and income.

Having a dog with the potential to fight and kill any type of threat (whether it be bears, bobcats, mountain lions, wolves, boar etc) was a cherished animal they could depend upon and because the human had to have control over that particular breed of dog it could NOT be human aggressive. (But!) People in the 1700's, 1800's used these dogs to guard their children from predators. They used these dogs to not only *herd* their cows/sheep/goats but to also fight the wild animal that was intent on killing part of the herd for food.

But, at the same time they depended upon that same dog to protect them from HUMAN threat. To sum it all up, the breeds which still have *other animal aggression* in the genetics is still there because it has yet to be bred OUT. And these exact same breeds do not have human aggression (this is being said solely on the assumption these are sound dogs) because THAT has not been bred out.

It all comes down to genetics and how the breeders centuries ago refined those genes to give them the type of dog they wanted. As far as other animal aggression vs human aggression? I will have to say that there is NOT a *human loving* gene.

The human aggressiveness have been bred out of many breeds. Culling pups/dogs in the beginning that showed signs of human aggression was one way our past breeders kept their lineage pure to the extent of not allowing a dog that displayed human aggression to be bred or even kept alive. Now, there ARE breeds that human aggression is essential today in order to train a dog to be a guardian of the humans and used to take out our human enemies whether it be on the streets of New York City or in the hell of Afghanistan.

This is where the question of other animal aggression is NOT the same as human aggression. Do tell? Then why can we take a dog that is NOT human aggressive and train it to attack upon command?

Of course this depends entirely on individual dog BUT when you give this enough thought, that Doberman/German Shepherd/Rottweiler that was professionally trained to kill another human on command, is sitting in your living room playing with your children. So is there really such a wide gap between other animal aggression and human aggression? I think not.

Animal aggression, prey drive, and Human aggression are all totally different. Just because a dog kills for say a Cat, does NOT mean a Child or human is next. Example: dog fighters needed to dogs to be people friendly, to handle, so the fighting dogs would attack the other dog, not the handler.

Prey drive is instinct, it's hardwired in dogs' brain to Chase anything that's small and moves fast. Animal aggression is just flat out aggression towards all animals. (Humans don't count).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.