Lara 1
Samantha Paula Ramos Lara
Professor Lynda Haas
Writing 39C
30 August 2015
A Path to End the Health and Welfare Issues Associated with Selective Breeding in Dogs
Introduction
Over 400 dog breeds exist today, exhibiting a wide array of traits that suit many different preferences and tasks. For example, working dogs assist humans by pulling sleds, herding dogs corral livestock to their pens, and hounds use their keen sense of smell to track down prey. The bulldog, for instance, is a currently popular breed characterized by a “heavy, thick-set, lowswung body, massive short-faced head, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs” (Bulldog Club of
America). These features are endearing to humans and play a large role in explaining the bulldog’s surge of popularity across America.
However, the health of the bulldog, as well as many other purebred dogs, is negatively affected by the very traits humans find endearing. In other words, the traits that humans attempt to accentuate by breeding purebred dogs can severely handicap the whole breed. The bulldog’s characteristic flat face makes it prone to “brachycephalic airway syndrome, which comprises a series of respiratory abnormalities affecting the throat, nose and mouth” (Denizet-Lewis). Their stocky build also has the capacity to cause suffering. Bulldogs are susceptible to a variety of health issues, including “cardiac and respiratory disease, hip dysplasia, cherry eye...and require daily cleaning of their skin folds to avoid problems” (Wilkes). Even former bulldog breeder
Diane Judy, who bred the current Yale mascot, does not feel comfortable breeding them anymore. In a fairly recent New York Times article, Judy expresses her concern: “They aren’t

Lara 2 athletic or especially healthy. Most can’t have sex without help — they’re too short and stocky.
Most can’t give birth on their own — their heads are too big. A breed that has trouble doing those two things is, by definition, in trouble” (Denizet-Lewis). By deliberately selecting and breeding for certain physical characteristics, from the flat face of the bulldog to the small stature of toy breeds, these dogs are at risk for a number of health problems and are predisposed to genetic diseases that may be fatal. Over 500 genetic defects exist in purebred dogs, a number that is so large in scope that we must consider intervention (Arman 1).
Review of Scientific Literature
Humans and dogs have been closely linked for a very long time, sharing a meaningful connection that has developed over thousands of years. That connection is clearly demonstrated through the domestication from wolf to dog. One of the earliest theories to account for the method of canine domestication was based on Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species , suggesting that humans utilized artificial selection, or breeding for desired characteristics. There has been continuous research in the past century that attempts to elaborate on or add to Darwin’s theory. For instance, Louis Bolk (1926), a Dutch theorist, proposed that canine artificial selection was initially based on juvenile features. Dmitri Belyaev’s famous experiment on silver foxes
(1959) suggest that the morphological features of dogs accompanied the intended selection to propagate a behavioral trait. More recently, James Serpell (1995), Director of the Center for the
Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary
Medicine, proposed events that may have occurred prior to artificial selection for certain traits. A scientific review on the evolution of canine domestication suggests that humans and canines are inextricably linked. Through artificial selection, humans have interrupted the natural progression of the canine species and are responsible for the species as a result of their own desire. This

Lara 3 sentiment remains true even in modern society, where humans select traits to replicate in certain breeds. At the same time, selective breeding eventually results in a smaller breeding pool, which can result in genetic predisposition to diseases.
James Serpell (1995) suggests that the interaction between wolves and humans began about 300,000 years ago when hunting sites overlapped (Serpell 8). Hunter-gatherers would kill wolves and use their fur as a source of clothing to protect them from the weather; they also occasionally took wolf pups back to the village in order to be tamed. Serpell argues that the domestication process began through caring for orphaned wolf pups. In the wild, survival required high alertness and quick reactions to stress. However, the wolves were no longer in the wild and had a place in human society; survival in the new environment actually required an opposite set of characteristics. Humans altered the “perceptual world” of the wolves, and doing so required a selection of traits that were suitable for the new settlement (15). The traits that indicated a domesticated animal - docility, lack of fear, and tolerance of stress - were specifically chosen and duplicated by humans. As a new “personality” developed in the tamed wolves, so too did a new morphology develop. Specifically, the tamed wolves had a reduced head and body size, quicker maturation, larger litter sizes, and increased fecundity (16). Once canine domestication started, humans began the stage of artificial selection for certain traits - fur color, coat length, leg length, tail structure, and ear structure. Eventually, generations of artificial selection altered the natural path of wolves and led to the breeds of dogs seen today. However, this stage of selecting dogs for a certain appearance leads back to the historically unpopular concept of eugenics, or advocating the selection for desired traits. Most people would be outraged at idea of breeding humans for specific traits. What makes dogs different? Why is it acceptable to breed dogs in a way that humans would not do for themselves? By looking at

Lara 4 selective breeding in dogs from another perspective, many of the core beliefs - preserving pedigree bloodlines and a certain appearance - retain a tinge of the appalling concept that makes some superior and others inferior.
Louis Bolk (1926), a Dutch anatomist and theorist, originally proposed the idea that dogs were domesticated neotenically on the basis of morphology (Serpell 39). In other words, humans selected dogs that seemed to retain juvenile features. Raymond Coppinger, Professor Emeritus of
Biology, and Charles Kay Smith, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Massachusetts, extend Bolk’s theory to include behavior. In 1983, Coppinger and Smith explain that “it is likely that prehistoric humans would have preferred...animals that had retained one or more youthful behavioral complexes such as tameness, docility, or adaptive flexibility, in different interspecific habitats” (7). Even at an early stage, humans were selecting for traits based on what they found appealing, in contrast to the welfare of the animal. Adult dogs maintain the same features as a juvenile, so they will remain dependent on human care. Eventually, the problem escalates to the point where some breeds are completely dependent upon human care. Generations of artificial selection begs the question: Have humans gone too far? As humans select for certain traits and alter the morphology of dogs into different kinds of breeds, health issues are developing within many breeds. Is it ethically acceptable to transform a once-independent species into a species that cannot live without human care because we find their childish features appealing? As humans have bred the dachshund to develop short legs - ideal for small spaces, like an apartment, and as a lap dog - their health is severely impacted. The abnormally short legs of the dachshund makes the whole breed prone to patellar luxation, intervertebral disk disease, and chondrodyplasia, also known as leg deformities.

Lara 5
The famous silver fox farm experiments, originally started by evolutionary biologist
Dmitri Belyaev, illustrates how selective pressure for certain traits affect the morphology and behavior of a species. Over a span of 50 years, researchers simulated selection pressure in which foxes were selected for tameness - less aggression and fear. Researchers selected foxes who exhibited behaviors that indicated an “eager[ness] to establish human contact;” such behaviors included whimpering to attract attention, sniffing, and licking experimenters (Trut 163). Despite the initial premise of selecting foxes based on one trait, the researchers received foxes that were not only tame, but also different in morphology. After about 30 generations of breeding, the morphological changes became obvious. The characteristics seen in the foxes reflect what is seen in many domestic dogs today. Many tamed foxes had floppy ears, short tails, coiled tails similar to dogs. It becomes clear from this experiment that selecting for certain traits also led to unforeseen results. Belyaev wanted only tame foxes and did not expect to receive foxes that exhibited doglike characteristics that are actually structural deformities. The same logic follows for the selection of traits seen in modern breeding practices. Is it right for humans to select certain traits to accentuate knowing that those traits may cause suffering to the dog?
Detrimental Health and Welfare Issues Associated with Selective Breeding
The modern breeding practice of selecting certain traits to represent a breed began with the inception of the dog show. The introduction of dog shows, officially known as
“conformation,” emerged in the nineteenth century as a hobby. According to The Kennel Club, an organization in the United Kingdom for pedigree and crossbred dogs, the first dog show was held in 1859. These competitions require participants to conform to human-directed breed standards, observable traits that include appearance and behavior. In other words, breeders compete with each other “to see how well they can reproduce phenotypes that conform to a

Lara 6 written standard - including traits that have, at best, questionable welfare benefits” (McGreevy &
Nicholas 330). Nonetheless, dog shows have gained worldwide recognition and a wide influence on perceptions about certain breeds. In a 2008 survey, 27% of potential pet owners associated a pedigree registered dog with the quality of the dog and 37% base their choice on a breed’s appearance (Rooney & Sargan 9). Thus, the influence of the dog show community and the standards that are imposed on breeds has a major influence on the dog population and the decisions made by breeders.
The selective breeding problem is a direct result of “desire to produce an unusual, exaggerated or spectacular conformation have often produced dogs which tend towards abnormality,” an idea perpetuated by influential kennel club associations, such as the American
Kennel Club, and careless dog breeders (Rooney & Sargan 2). Figure 1 exemplifies the problem and indicates the massive transformation the bull terrier has undergone. 100 years after the original image was published, the bull terrier has gained its characteristic “egg-shaped” head, a thicker torso, and along with those superficial traits, some problematic health traits such as susceptibility to heart and kidney disease. Serpell asserts that humans have a tendency toward anthropomophic selection, which he defines as “selection in favor of physical and behavioral traits that facilitate the attribution of human mental states to animals” (Denizet-Lewis). As dogs transitioned from working animals to companion animals, traits that were initially selected for function are now selected based on appearance. For companion animals, the “selection for morphological neoteny found favor,” identical to Bolk’s theory of neotenic selection (McGreevy
& Nicholas 332). Although selection for neoteny has strengthened the bond between human and dog, it is also associated with health and welfare issues. This phenomenon is especially noticeable between old and modern lap dogs. For instance, the “'large dark round' eyes, pendant

Lara 7 ears and 'compact, cushioned' feet” of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel indicates very puppylike characteristics (332). At the same time, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel’s rounded “dolllike” head makes it extremely susceptible to develop a Chiari malformation, characterized by
“disparity in size between the brain parenchyma (too big) and the skull (too small)” (Knowler et al. 1). The structural defect can cause syringomyelia (SM), a condition that affects the brain and spine; dogs with this condition are prone to headaches, difficulty walking, and even paralysis
(Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club).
In order to maintain standards, many breeders control the genetic process with interbreeding. Patrick Burns, a columnist for Dogs Today
, divulges that “In many AKC dogs, the founding gene pool was less than 50 dogs. For some breeds, it was less than 20 dogs” (Allan 18).
As a result, parent dogs that both have deletrious genes will produce an offspring that has a high chance of inheriting a genetic defect. The likelihood of two deletrious recessive genes passed down increases as the rate of inbreeding increases because there is little genetic diversity. The effects will continue from generation to generation, as noted by Belyaev’s experiments. But instead of unobstructive morphological deformities, the results will have severe health and welfare consequences. The effects of a genetic defect can be long lasting, possibly for a large portion or the entirety of a dog’s life. For instance, the brachycephalic face shape of the bulldog makes a natural process, breathing, difficult to execute. According to Dr. John Lewis, an assistant professor of dentistry and oral surgery at Ryan Veterinary Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania, the human equivalent to breathing the way some bulldogs do “would be if we walked around with our mouth or nose closed and breathed through a straw” (Denizet-Lewis).
Because dogs cool themselves down by breathing, breeds such as the bulldog can overheat easily

Lara 8
(Denizet-Lewis). As a result, exercising or sitting out in the sun for an extended amount of time can be hazardous.
Possible Ways Forward
Since the BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed aired, the Kennel Club an organization in the United Kingdom for pedigree and crossbred dogs, reviewed the health plans and breed standards for every breed. In addition, the Kennel Club has “banned the registration of puppies from closely related parents (matings of fathers and daughters, for example)” (Allan 20).
However, the AKC has “not publicized any plans to encourage its member clubs to update their breed standards, and the organization continues to register puppies from the matings of closely related dogs” (21). Instead, the AKC has opened a readily accessible database for consumers and breeders that contains information on dogs who have been screened for genetic disease. But it still may be difficult to find proof health certification because testing is not mandatory and it is unlikely to become required in the future . In 2000, the AKC instituted a policy that required any male dog who bred more than seven times to have a $40 DNA test (21). Despite the efforts, the plan backfired and breeders in Iowa and Missouri, places where puppy mills thrive, boycotted
AKC registration and registered dogs through other organizations. Although individual communities attempt to improve the health and welfare through their own standards, many are still reluctant to admit the common health issues that plague their breed. Overall, not much has changed; there are many groups with an interest in preserving the characteristics of purebred dogs, which makes the situation difficult to resolve.
As proposed by animal researchers Kolosi and Gunn, it could be possible to establish
“international gene banks compromising frozen semen from different populations of the same breed” (McGreevy & Nicholas 335). These gene banks can overcome the restrictions of limited

Lara 9 diversity imposed by a small breeding population. Some may argue that reproductive technology using artificial insemination can be misused. It can easily spread the genes of a small number of animals widely throughout a breed, possibly worsening the issue. Furthermore, there is concern about the success rate and cost of artificial insemination. However, sharing genetic information via gene banks can drastically reduce the rate of inbreeding among small populations and can provide breeders with a wider array of related ancestors. A gene bank facility is able to store high quality genetic samples from a large selection dogs at optimum breeding age. Breeders can share resources without the donor animals leaving their home. The facilities are also low cost to maintain - less staff, space, and equipment are needed to run a gene bank center. The Royal
Guide Dogs Associations of Australia (RGDAA), a non-profit charitable organization that breeds and provides dogs for visually impaired people, has been using frozen semen for artificial insemination with successful results. RGDAA had a trial run of sharing genetic information with other associations to reduce problems associated with inbreeding. The trial received frozen semen from Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc. (In the US) and from the Guide Dogs For the Blind
Association (in the UK), resulting in a “100% conception rate” (Kolosi & Gunn 146).
In another attempt to increase genetic diversity, opening stud books to allow the introduction of genetic material into lineages can prevent disorders from manifesting within the offspring (Sargan & Rooney 40). In other words, there should be a cross between two different breeds, and then a back cross to the desired breed; the resultant offspring will be indistinguishable from pure-bred member. This proposition can be especially difficult to achieve because kennel clubs require breeding dogs to have pedigrees “comprising only of dogs registered in that breed” (McGreevy & Nicholas 337). Thus, introducing new genetic material through crossbreeding may be viewed as a heretical act. Critics may worry that taking actions to

Lara 10 increase genetic diversity through crossbreeding will completely change or “water down” the breed. The reluctance from kennel clubs and breed associations provide a financial disincentive for backcrossing. But it is up to the breeders to take action. In fact, some breeders have felt a strong desire to rescue breeds and created their own “breeds” as a result of the backcrossing plan discussed prior. For instance, the “Bob-tailed Boxer,” was created by crossing a Boxer with a
Welsh Corgi, then backcrossing to a Boxer (Rooney & Sargan 41). The fourth-generation offspring was able to be registered with the Kennel Club and won prizes.
Social media can also play a large role in addressing a change. As Clay Shirky, a
Distinguished Writer in Residence at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York
University noted in his TED Talk,
“How social media can make history,” “social media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap.” Shirky explains that media operates worldwide and is everywhere; the media - namely the internet - consists of so many platforms (news, conversation groups, etc.) that are integrated in almost every aspect of our lives. The rise of social media created an opening for people to voice their opinion to anybody across the world, a powerful tool to incite change. By educating the public, the use of social media creates an opportunity for a culture shift: Change the public perspective into one that perceives dogs who are healthy and have a high quality of life as those who are the most desireable in contrast to those who are aesthetically pleasing.
Through the use of Twitter, advocates can quickly voice their thoughts and simultaneously educate the public about the issues that surround the health of purebred dogs.
Activists can tweet their actions to boycott dog shows, possibly influencing others to do the same. Posting images of dogs who are severely impaired by the disorders brought upon by selective breeding will allow viewers to see undeniable proof that it is a serious issue. Groups

Lara 11 that form a social media campaign can use their homebase as a central hub for sharing information and spreading knowledge. This year, Out of the Box Rescue Efforts, a social media campaign dedicated to preventing animal abuse and neglect, and an online petition sparked police investigation on a puppy mill located in Midland Michigan (Tower). The police received complaints from local residents as well as calls from concerned people who learned of the situation via social media. In addition more than 4,500 people signed the online petition that demanded action should be taken against the kennel. The investigation was launched thanks to the collective efforts of local residents and activists. Although global solutions are a crucial component to addressing the problems associated with selective breeding, it is just as important to acknowledge the efficacy of social media. Actions that may seem trivial on a small scale, such as a Facebook post or an online petition, can incite change when others respond and people work together.
Some accept selective breeding because they depend on the consistency that purebred traits exhibit; they claim that breed standards go beyond appearance and are also bred for function. But these traits are predictable to the point that most breeds have a list of inherited defects. At the same time, there should not be a trade-off between health and predictable traits.
Lillian Barber, the President of the Kennel Club of Palm Springs, California, explains that some breeds are adapted for certain jobs and responsible breeders pay close attention to the health of their dogs. She also claims that most breeders “support research regarding the genetic health of their breeds and plan their matings carefully to insure that the offspring will be healthy.” But should we be funding research that attempts to cure the symptoms instead of research that resolves the issue? Owners and breeders should not pay for surgery or medication for a dog to

Lara 12 function like a dog. There are different alternatives that are less costly and more beneficial to the health of dogs, noted in the proposed solutions.
Animal abuse comes in many forms. Some of the ways that humans hurt animals can easily be seen, from outright abuse to the poor living conditions that animals are subject to in overcrowded puppy mills. But other forms of animal abuse are more subtle and difficult to address. As noted by Carrie Allan, the Editorial Director at the Humane Society of the United
States, “dogs have become entangled in our sense of self” (Allan 23). Many people regard dogs as companions or even as a substitute to children. And there is nothing wrong with those beliefs, as long as the health and welfare of animals is not compromised in exchange.

Lara 13
Works Cited
Allan, Carrie. "The Purebred Paradox." All Animals n.d.: 16-23. Web. 30 Aug. 2015.
Arman, Koharik. "A New Direction for Kennel Club Regulations and Breed Standards."
Canadian Veterinary Journal 48 (2007): 953-65. Print.
Barber, Lillian. “The Ethics of Raising Purebred Dogs.”
The New York Times . 12 Feb. 2013.
Debate
Bulldog Club of America. "Bulldog Standard." The Bulldog Club of America . N.p., 28 Nov.
1990. Web. 17 Aug. 2015.
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club. "Syringomyelia." Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club .
N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2015.
Denizet-Lewis, Benoit. "Can the Bulldog Be Saved?" The New York Times . The New York
Times, 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Aug. 2015.
Knowler, Susan P., Angus K. Mcfadyen, Courtenay Freeman, Marc Kent, Simon R. Platt, Zoha
Kibar, and Clare Rusbridge. "Quantitative Analysis of Chiari-Like Malformation and
Syringomyelia in the Griffon Bruxellois Dog." PLoS ONE 9.2 (2014): 1-13. Web. 12
Aug. 2015.
Kolosi, J., and I. M. Gunn. "An International Gene Bank For Guide Dogs: Organisation,
Utilization, and Potential." Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet.
12 (1997): 145-48.
Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
McGreevy, Paul D., and Frank W. Nicholas. "Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in
Dog Breeding." Animal Welfare (1999): 329-41. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.
Rooney, Nicola, and David Sargan. "Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare
Concern?" RSPCA . N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.

Lara 14
Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People .
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.
Tower, Mark. "Social Media Campaign against 'puppy Mill' in Midland County Prompts
Sheriff's Response." MLive . N.p., 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Aug. 2015.
Trut, Lyudmila. "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment." American Scientist
87.2 (1999): 160-69. Web.
Wilkes, Joe. "Have We Overbred Bulldogs?" Cesar's Way . N.p., 17 June 2015. Web. 29 Aug.
2015.