Jo Bian

Writing 39C
Dr. Lynda Hass
5/25/15
Extreme Dog Breeding- Downside of Modern Dog Show
"All species are related biologically and through evolution. Instead of treating them like
objects, we should be treating them as our kindred. -Richard Ryder
Introduction
The canine species, commonly known as dogs, have accompanied humans for thousands of
years. They are the animals humans are most familiar with, because almost every household
owns at least one or wants to have one. Dogs are evolved from wolves. To accommodate to the
human society, they underwent drastic selection pressure and evolved to change their behavior
and appearances. They went from being the savage predators who easily sit on the top of the
food chain, to the animal humans consider as best friend.
Dog domestication began long before any historical literature can record, but clear evidences that
show the evolution line from wolves to dogs have not yet been found. All scientists know for
certain is that humans definitely have played a huge role in this process. Early humans trained
dogs to hunt and work with them. In exchange, dogs are provided food and shelter. Thus, a longlasting bond called mutualism was formed between humans and dogs. However, as humans
gradually rely less on dogs functionalities, they begin to breed dogs for their appearances.
A dogs appearance depends on their behavior and their environment. Dog domestication experts
James Serpell, Darcy F. Morey, L. N. Trut, Leslie Irvine and Adam Miklosi have published
research, tracing dogs journey of domestication. In their publications, they analyzed how dogs

behavior are related to their appearance and how big of a difference the humankind have made
on dogs. In a lot of breeding clubs today, profit made from a purebred dog or a trophy from the
dog show is valued over the dogs welfare. Breeders see puppies as objects; they modify dogs
appearances through extreme breeding and neglect the disorders they bring to dogs by doing so.
Review of the Scientific Literature
Humans have always domesticated dogs to accommodate their own preference/convenience. Dr.
Darcy F. Morey is a zoo archaeologist from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. In his
journey published in American Scientists in 1994, he defines domestication as people isolated
individuals of a particular species from their wild counterparts and then selectively bred them to
exaggerate desirable traits and eliminate undesirable ones in a process known as artificial
selection (Morey 336). Morey noticed that compared to their ancestor wolves, dogs are smaller
in size; they have a shorter and more rounded face. Morey suggested that this phenomenon
indicates that during the evolution process, the domesticated wolves remain their juvenile form
even in adulthood, which makes them look harmless and submissive, therefore, it is a desirable
trait favored by their human owners (Morey 341). Also because dogs do not need to prey (What
do you mean by need to prey? and compete with other predators anymore; they do not need the
camouflage fur coat. According to Russian Geneticist Dmitry K. Belyaevs experiment on
domesticating foxes, who are close kin to dogs, domesticated foxes start to have patches of
discoloration on their fur due to lack of pigmentation (Trut 162).
Not only do their physical appearances stay premature, domestication also causes dogs to behave
differently than their wild ancestors. Adult dogs act much like juvenile wolves (Morey 344).
They constantly seek attention from their human owners. Seen as a form of submissive, dogs

play, whine, and bark; they kept the behavior that is only seen in wolves pups, which wolves out
grow when they reach their adulthood (Morey 344).
Belyaevs experiment on farm foxes also shows that the offsprings of two tamed foxes are
usually friendlier and more willing to approach human (Trut 163). The researchers categorize
foxes that intentionally seek humans attention as domesticated elite. In about 40 years and 3035 generations, the population of domesticated elite foxes increased from 18 percent to 70-80
percent of the entire experimental group (Trut 163). The domesticated elites display dog-like
behavior, showing their eagerness to please human by wagging their tails and licking visitors
hands (Trut 163). From This phenomenon combined with the phenotypical change displayed
from wolves to dogs, leads Morey to questions if the there is a cause-and-effect relationship
between behavior and the physical appearance of domesticated dogs.
Dr. DM MIKLSI, director of the Family Dog Project in Etvs Lornd University of
Hungary in his book Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition states that there has not been
enough evidences discovered to prove any long-lasting relationship between humans and early
dogs before 15,000 years (MIKLSI 126). He said that humans began to dwell in settlements
about 10,000-15,000 years ago, which is when they started to have excessive food to attract wild
dogs (MIKLSI 128). Individual hunters realized the benefit and efficiency of working with
dogs, so they start to domesticate and train them (MIKLSI 128). This could explain why dogs
appear relatively rapidly at western and northern European sites around 12,000 years ago, said
MIKLSI (128).
Humans originally domesticated dogs for hunting purposes (Morey 339). Since humans no
longer depend on hunting as the only way to acquire food, they began to train and breed dogs to
do other tasks. Serpell mentioned in the chapter Evolution of Working Dogs of his book The

Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, new breeds of dogs are
created for Herding and sledding. Herding dogs such as Australian shepherd dogs and boarder
colie are able to lead livestock and keep them together (Serpell 30). These dogs would display an
intrinsic predatory behavior during their juvenile phase (Serpell 30). Humans observed the
behavior and trained the dogs to display these stalk and chase, grab bite, and crush bite
actions in the right environment and right time (Serpell 30).
Similar to herding dogs, humans also bred Sledding dogs as working aid. These dogs were
essential during the 1896 Alaska Gold Rush for they provided transportations in the extreme
environment (Serpell 21). Sledding dog breeds are later glorified for they incredible ability in
distance running, as Serpell stated in the chapter, For distances of over ten miles, sled dogs are
easily the fastest land mammal (22).
Discussion of Philosophical/Ethical Questions
Humans observe different behaviors within dogs and bred them to do different tasks.
However, as time goes on, hunting is no longer the only way humans obtain food. Humans
dependence on dogs has also shifted its focus. Since dogs are familiar with humans behavior,
and they are willing to please humans for food and protection; they became the best companion
animals. Humans began to breed dogs for their appearances rather than for practical reasons. It
was even a fashion trend in the Victorian Era. Dog breeders and owners take pride in having a
purebred dog. They would die for a dog that has won a dog show or is in the champion
bloodline. For this reason, a lot of closely related dogs are bred to produce the pureblood
offspring. But little did people know, or rather care, was that purebred dogs are more at risk for
inherited genetic disorders due to the lack of gene variation.
Definition of the Problem

Dogs have been playing a unique role in the human history. They hunt with human, work for
human, and provide companionship to human. Early dogs are bred only for their functionalities,
which can be sorted in seven categories: hound, gundog, terrier, utility, working, pastoral and toy
(Farrell 2). Thousands of years later, when human no longer need dogs to work efficiently, they
begin to breed dogs for their looks. This phenomenon was exaggerated during the Victorian Era
when dog shows started to gain popularity (Farrell 2). The judges set standards for how each
breed of dogs suppose to look like. Some of these preferred traits negatively affect the health and
abilities of dogs (Farrell 2). For example, todays Bulldogs are bred to have shorter nostrils
(flatter face), which cause them to have respiratory problems (Farrell 5). In the fashion of dog
breeding, humans see themselves as higher beings. They genetically modify dogs appearances to
achieve the aesthetics but neglect the life-long harm they bring to the innocent animals.
Owner and breeders prioritize the pedigree of dogs, but know little about the disorders
purebred dogs often suffer. Paul McGreevy and Frank Nicholas are both Doctors from the
University of Sydney. Dr. McGreevy specializes in animal welfare and Dr. Nicholas in genetics.
Together, they listed several examples of how show standards conflict with itself and with the
health of dogs. According to the Kennel Club, an ideal Shar Pei dog has to have loose skin and a
frowned face, but its eyes should not be affected by the folded skin and hair surrounding them
(McGreevy 331). This standard is quite difficult to achieve, because the layers of skin are most
likely to push the dogs eyelid inward and cause entropion (McGreevy 331). In a similar case,
Miniature Poodles and Italian Greyhounds have an innate tendency of jumping, but dog shows
demand long and thin legs, which could be easily fractured or even broken when they practice
their natural behavior (McGreevy 331). Some intensive selective pressure can also result in dogs
mental defect. For example, Border Collie are known for their herding ability. They use their

inherited predatory behavior show eyes to stalk sheep to keep them in the flock (Serpell 30).
This behavior is applause and exaggerated by the breeders. They purposely intensify the stare
within generations of breeding. One of the outcomes of this practice is that the Border Collie
would stare intensely at a blank wall (McGreevy 332). These examples lead to a question: what
is the purpose of dog breeding? If it is only to satisfy humans aesthetics, why should dogs suffer
to pay the price?
Because of the lack of genetic variation, purebred dogs suffer as many as 322 inherited
disorders (Amess 16). This is caused by breeding dogs from the same sire in a short generation
interval (Amess 21). Everyone knows what happens to human incest; the offspring would have
serious genetic disorder due to the prevailing of recessive, disadvantaged genes. Therefore, incest
is immoral and strictly banned by the human society. Then why is it acceptable for human to
encourage the incest among dogs?
People often think animal abuse is only defined as being physically violent towards
animals. They do not see that unethically breeding dogs is a bigger issue because the
consequences have lifelong effects on dogs. As Richard Ryder, an animal welfare activist said in
the beginning of this paper, dogs are not objects. They are not artworks for human to judge
their appearances then overlook their wellbeing. Inbreeding is morally unacceptable in humans,
and the same standard should be hold true to dogs.
Solution to the problem
Extreme dog breeding is harmful for dogs and their potential owners, since the symptom might
not display when the dogs are sold as puppies. People who seek for pedigree dogs and do not
know about their deficiency are at risk of spending a lot of money on buying the dog, and spend
even more on their dog's vet bills. For example, in the video Cavalier sequence from Pedigree

Dogs Exposed, two cavalier spaniels display a horrible condition which cause them want to
constantly scratch themselves. Dr. Clare Rusbridge, who is a veterinary neurologist points out
that the scratching behavior is triggered when dogs brains oversize their skull. Its like a size 10
foot shoved into a size 6 shoe. It doesnt fit, she said, Its described in humans as one of the
most painful condition you can have. Even a light touch, [and] even the color of a clothing can
cause discomfort. However, this issue is not easy to solve since dog breeding has been a trend
for nearly two hundred years, and purebred dogs has always been in high demand.
Dr. Nicolas Rooney, a pathologist in Britain, and Dr. David Sargan, a pathology
professor who specializes in Canine and comparative genetics and genomics, suggested in their
conjoined publication that to control the genetic deficiency among pedigree dogs, all pedigree
dogs should be registered and a copy of their detailed health report should be documented. Since
the Kennel Club is currently the biggest dog-breeding club, and is seen as official by many
private breeders and organizations, they already have majority of pedigree dogs documented.
The next step is to have the dog breeder and owners to report the morbidity and mortality
condition of their dogs, so that the ratio of pedigree dogs being affected by genetic disorder can
be further studied and prevented. To increase the genetic diversity of pedigree dogs, first and
second-degree relatives should not be allowed to breed, and their offspring should not be
consider as pedigree dogs; also, inter-country mating should be encouraged.
From a moral aspect, relative departments should issue Code of Practice (Rooney
and David 43). They should advocate for breeders to prioritize the health of dogs over their
looks. To do so, dog shows should consider dogs health condition as one of the most important
judging standards. In case some dogs appear healthy in the show ring but can be potentially ill,
the judges should have the knowledge to recognize the slightest trace of these illnesses.

Because breeding clubs are mostly private, government and legal regulations can only
do so much. To stop extreme breeding, one of the most effective ways is to raise peoples
awareness about this issue. Social media, therefore, plays a crucial role in getting the societys
attention about this urgent situation. Campaigning through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram can
reach to people of all ages and social classes from everywhere in the world. By spreading
information about genetic effects pedigree dogs suffer on these social media, dog owners and
people who care about dogs welfare can join their forces so that breeding clubs have to
reevaluate what is truly important to dogs.
In conclusion, dogs appearances have always been changed to accommodate humans
preference. Before they are bred for aesthetics, dogs forms and behavior are changed to suit the
task so they can work better for humans, which is why they are kept closely to humans
comparing to other domesticated animals and are considered as humans best friend. Although
they developed various sizes and personalities, they were still healthy. However, in the modern
society, dogs welfare is overlooked by a lot of breeders. The temptation of a dog show trophy
and the profit made from selling purebred dogs blind people from seeing what harm extreme dog
breeding can bring to dogs. The genetic disorders a lot of purebred dogs are suffering are long
lasting and life threatening. This problem can only be resolved by peoples attention,
governments regulation and official organizations supervision.

Work Cited
Amess, David, Harry Cohen, Baroness Gale, Mike Hall, Lord Hoyle, Eric Martlew,
Baroness Masham, Eliot Morley, Mark Pritchard, Andrew Stunell, Andrew
Rosindell, and Roger Williams. A Healthier Future for Pedigree Dogs.
Publication.Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, Nov. 2009. Web. 10 May 2016.
Collins, Lisa M., Lucy Asher, Jennifer Summers, and Paul Mcgreevy. "Getting Priorities
Straight: Risk Assessment and Decision-making in the Improvement of Inherited Disorders in
Pedigree Dogs." The Veterinary Journal 189.2 (2011): 147-54. Web. 24 May 2016.
Farrell, Lindsay L., Jeffrey J. Schoenebeck, Pamela Wiener, Dylan N. Clements, and Kim
M. Summers. "The Challenges of Pedigree Dog Health: Approaches to Combating
Inherited Disease." Canine Genet Epidemiol Canine Genetics and Epidemiology 2.1
(2015):
n. pag. Web. 11 May 2016.
McGreevy, P. D., and F. W. Nicholas. "Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in
Dog Breeding." Animal Welfare (1999): 329-41. Print.
Miklsi, dm. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Oxford UP, 2015. Print.
Morey, Darcy F. "The Early Evolution of the Domestic Dog." American Scientists 82 (1994):
336-47. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

Trut, L. N., I. Z. Plyusnina, and I. N. Oskina. "An Experiment on Fox Domestication and
Debatable Issues of Evolution of the Dog." Russian Journal of Genetics 40.6 (2004):
644-55. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.