Samantha Paula Ramos Lara
20 August 2015
Professor Lynda Haas
Writing 39C
AP Full Draft: Selective Breeding in Dogs Causes Suffering
Introduction
Over 400 dog breeds exist today, exhibiting a wide array of traits that suit many different
preferences and tasks. Working dogs assist humans in different tasks, such as pulling sleds;
herding dogs are frequently seen corralling livestock to their pens; hounds use their keen sense of
smell to track down prey; toy breeds are lap dogs with a small stature that is ideal for citydwellers. The bulldog, for instance, is a breed characterized with a “heavy, thick-set, low-swung
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 and stocky build has the capacity to cause itself suffering. 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 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 2)
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 too large to accept without 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 origin
of dog domestication was based on Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species, which suggested
that artificial selection was the reason. There has been continuous research that attempts to
elaborate on his theory or to discover another explanation. However, each theory has the
underlying impression that human interference was essential for dogs to develop into the
hundreds of breeds seen today. A scientific review on the evolution of canine domestication
suggests that humans and canines are inextricably linked. Through the use of artificial selection,
humans have interrupted the natural progression of the canine species and are responsible for the
species as a result. This 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. The review of
scientific literature reveals that the process of selective breeding may have started at the
beginning of the relationship between human and dog.
James Serpell (1995), the Director of the Center for the Interaction of Animals and
Society at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, suggests that the
interaction between wolves and humans began about 300,000 years ago when hunting sites
overlapped (8). Hunter-gatherers would kill wolves and use their fur as a source of clothing to
deal with this issue. However, the hunter-gatherers would occasionally take 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 the 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
result, the tamed wolf pups became reproductively isolated from the wild population. Subsequent
breeding with tamed wolves eventually produced a domestic species that would “multiply in
numbers and be genetically changed by natural selection in response to the factors in the new,
human environment” (15). Just 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. But 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. 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.
Similarly, Louis Bolk (1926), a Dutch anatomist and theorist, originally proposed the
idea that dogs were domesticated neotenically on the basis of morphology. 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 flecibility, in
different interspecific habitats” (7). At this point, humans are selecting for traits based on what
they find 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. Although this dependency
seems fine because dogs are integrated into human society, the welfare of dogs is still an issue.
Eventually the problem escalates to the point where some dogs are completely dependent upon
human care. 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? The bulging
eyes, pudgy build, and ridged face of the pug is especially appealing to humans because its
features are infantile, compelling humans to take care of them. However, these features make the
pug prone to eye problems, respiratory issues, and bone disease.
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 lead to
receiving 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?
A Definition of the Problem
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 recent past 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. Dog shows have gained nationwide
recognition and an influence on perceptions of 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 (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 a
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 5). Similar
to Bolk’s theory of neotenic selection, humans have bred dogs - the bulldog, the dachshund, the
bloodhound - because their physical features are appealing to us.
In order to maintain these breed standards many breeders are in control of the genetic
process. 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.” With such
a small gene pool, there is a large chance for individuals of many breeds to share similar genes.
As a result, parent dogs that both have recessive genes will produce an offspring that has a high
chance of inheriting a genetic defect. The likelihood of two recessive genes passed down
increases as the inbreeding population decreases 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 consequences.
The effects of a genetic defect can be long lasting, possibly for a large portion or the entirety of a
dog’s life.
A study conducted in 2009 by veterinary experts Asher, Diesel, Summers, McGreevy,
and Collins (2009) indicates the detrimental effects breed standards have on purebred dogs. In
the study, the authors examine the number, prevalence, and impact of disorders related to
conformation of breed standards. The data is then used to establish a generic illness severity
index for dogs (GISID). Beginning with literature research on the top 50 KC-registered breeds
in the UK, the authors categorize the disorders associated with each breed and rate them based
on severity. They found out that each of the top 50 dog breeds has at least one aspect of
conformation associated to predisposed health problems. For instance, many health issues are
linked with the brachycephalic head shape, characterized by a flat and wide skull that gives the
face and nose a “pushed in” appearance. Pugs and bulldogs are predisposed to brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome (BAOS), indicated by increased airway resistance and increased
effort to inhale (Asher et al. 406).
Possible Ways Forward
The dog show and dog breeding industry is self-regulating. In America, the American
Kennel Club (AKC) essentially has the monopoly on the registration of purebred dogs and the
storage of stud books, commonly known as breed registries. In addition, breed standards are
created and enforced, through shows, by the AKC and hundreds of breed clubs.
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. However, the AKC has not done any revision since
Pedigree Dogs Exposed was aired, ignoring the issues entirely. 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 complex.
One possible way forward is to collect the mortality and morbidity rate from all
registered dogs. This information provides valuable data on the prevalence and incidence of
different disorders for each breed. With the increasing use of electronic storage, collecting
information through registration or checkups is efficient. A standardized data collection system
is useful because information is portable and stored in one location. Some may argue that not all
clinics are computerized, so this system may be implemented slowly and will cost a lot of
money. This solution requires finding and support from veterinarians. However, the data is a
useful tool in revealing the problems in lesser-known breeds. In addition, trends for certain
disorders can be visualized from the information collected. The collected data can then be used
to establish interventions for breeds.
Another breeding-centered solution is to “prevent the registration of the offspring of any
mating between first-degree and second-degree relatives” (Sargan & Rooney 40). As a way to
hasten the breeding process, some breeders may allow the mating between parent and offspring,
siblings, half siblings, or grandparent and offspring. Such actions should result in non-pedigree
and non-registerable offspring that prevents them from entering competitions. This solution
could lead to a decrease in the rate of inbreeding, a key reason behind the declining gene pools
and increasing prevalence of disorders. Although this proposition may be met with reluctance
from dog breeders, it emphasizes the importance of genetic diversity.
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. This proposition can be especially difficult to achieve because kennel clubs and
breeders are mainly concerned with preserving breed standards. Critics may worry that taking
actions to increase genetic diversity through crossbreeding will completely change or “water
down” the breed. However, these concerns have been illustrated as unsubstantiated by a the
UK’s “Bob-tailed Boxer,” 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.
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 that form a
social media campaign can use their homebase as a central hub for sharing information and
spreading knowledge. 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.
Works Cited
Arman, Koharik. "A New Direction for Kennel Club Regulations and Breed Standards."
Canadian Veterinary Journal 48 (2007): 953-65. Print.
Asher, Lucy, Gillian Diesel, Jennifer F. Summers, Paul D. McGreevy, and Lisa M. Collins.
"Inherited Defects in Pedigree Dogs. Part 1: Disorders Related to Breed Standards." The
Veterinary Journal 182.3 (2009): 402-11. ScienceDirect. Web.
Denizet-Lewis, Benoit. "Can the Bulldog Be Saved?" The New York Times. The New York
Times, 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Aug. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html>.
Rooney, Nicola, and David Sargan. "Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare
Concern?" RSPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.
"Selective Breeding Problems." PBS. 16 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-selective-breedingproblems/1281/>.
Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.
Trut, Lyudmila. "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment." American Scientist
87.2 (1999): 160-69. Web.