Animals getting put down for "Aggressive Behavior"

This. is definitely a well-thought-out, compassionate answer. However, it's one deeply rooted in logically fallacious argument. Specifically, it is a classic example of cherry picking. In fact, it's actually an example of what I'll call meta-cherry picking in that it not only selectively chooses evidence sources that support its point sources from a larger universe of available options, but within those sources, it selectively chooses anecdotal arguments claiming they are properly representative of the issue at large. The crux of this argument is the contention that "Each 'Aggressive' animal CAN be rehabilitated," and that "Cesar Millan can prove that any dog can be rehabilitated." If the first contention is primarily based on the second (in addition to the "My Cat From Hell" example), surely contradicting or disproving the latter would cause the former to collapse. A further point you put forth is that owners of "aggressive" animals are the ones at fault and that "give the proper care and attention, an animal can thrive and be sweet." I will address this as well.In short, I will provide scientific and scholarly evidence of the following: Dominance-based concepts, like those employed by Cesar Millan, are not nearly as effective as the public is led to believe and in fact are often counterproductive There is ample literature to suggest that many dogs are born aggressive through no fault of their owners I think all logical readers would agree that sufficient evidence proving both of the above premises assuredly dismantles and sufficiently proves wrong your argument's claim(s). Cesar Millan is nothing more than an entertainment figure masquerading as a visionary in behavioral veterinary medicine. He espouses the view that one can find "almost immediate success through basic dominance-based concepts any human can understand. These dominance-based concepts, however, have been proven to be patently ineffective in many cases: Dr. Patty Khuly has spoken on a scholarly article in The Journal of Applied Animal Behavior, stating how it "offers us the dark side of these Cesar-esque tricks far more scientifically than intuitively, helping highlight how simple corrective measures conveying dominance can be futile, misconstrued, prove counterproductive, and often result in bodily harm to humans." According to lead study author Dr. Meghan Herron of the University of Pennsylvania, "Nationwide, the number-one reason why dog owners take their dog to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior. Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them, or intimidating them with physical manipulation, do little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses." Dr. Sophia Yin, a veterinarian and applied animal behaviorist compiled a list of dominance-based approaches to canine aggression that fan the flames of these unwanted behaviors. The highest frequency of aggression occurred in response to aversive (or punishing) interventions, even when the intervention was indirect. Hitting or kicking the dog (41% of owners reported aggression) Growling at the dog (41%) Forcing the dog to release an item from its mouth (38%) “Alpha roll” (forcing the dog onto its back and holding it down) (31%) “Dominance down” (forcing the dog onto its side) (29%) Grabbing the jowls or scruff (26%) Staring the dog down (staring at the dog until it looks away) (30%) Spraying the dog with water pistol or spray bottle (20%) Yelling “no” (15%) Forced exposure (forcibly exposing the dog to a stimulus – such as tile floors, noise or people – that frightens the dog) (12%) Dog trainer Victoria Stilwell, has said once again that some of Cesar's methods — such as the alpha roll, in which he pins a dog on its back and holds it by the throat to exert dominance — are dangerous and counterproductive. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) agrees that Cesar's approach to dog training might be misguided. In a statement issued by the organization, the AVMA argued that “dominant-submissive relationships that do occur in nature are a means to allocate resources — a problem that rarely exists between dogs and their owners." Now for the contention that owners are at fault for aggression and that pets cannot be born aggressive. Many scientists beg to differ: A recent study from the University of Arizona shows that oxytocin works to suppress the release of cortisol (the body’s main stress hormone) and works in opposition to vasopressin. These levels are dictated by genetics and present at birth. Vasopressin has been implicated as a trigger for what’s called the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which enables the body’s “flight-or-fight” response. Psychologist and anthropologist Evan MacLean and his colleagues found that the presence of vasopressin was more strongly associated with aggressive behavior in dogs than oxytocin. In the well-renowned paper, "Aggression is Related to Frontal Serotonin-1A Receptor Distribution as Revealed by PET in Healthy Subjects" it was found that "serotonin regulates impulsivity and the inhibitory control of aggression. Aggression is also known to be modified by sex hormones, which exert influence on serotonergic neurotransmission." Given that these neurotransmitters and hormones are all present at birth, it is fair to conclude that the owner is not the only one at fault in cases of pet aggression. Colleen Safford, one of New York City’s most well-known dog trainers and the mother of three young kids, tells us that within each breed, and indeed, within each litter, there is a wide range of temperaments. Some breeds were certainly bred for specific tasks, some of which may require that they be more aggressive (and bred to be that way) PetMD states that "the causes for inappropriate or unwanted aggression can come from many sources. For example, in the same way that some people have serious and grumpy dispositions, cats, can be born with an aggressive personality type, too." These are just a few of the seemingly-endless pieces of evidence discrediting your argument(s). Perhaps you may answer and say that this evidence is just one side of a two-sided coin and that there are other scholars who agree with you. That may be. However, I think it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt that I have provided enough evidence to suggest that at least some dogs are inherently aggressive AND that many of the popular rehabilitation techniques, including those you've cited, are not only ineffective (in many cases), but often counterproductive.