The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show has been held annually every February for the last seventy-five years, making it the “second longest, continuously held sporting event in the U.S.” The allure of this event is its stiff competition; only the best, most perfectly trained and groomed dogs of every breed are gathered for professional judgment. However, despite coming first in competition, these dogs may place last in the competition for health. With common issues including hip dyslexia, “respiratory disorders, skin conditions, reproductive issues and eye injuries”, purebred dogs often come with expensive vet bills included in their high price tags. It is no coincidence either – through selective breeding, humans have produced dogs that are more unhealthy, shorter lived, and more genetically vulnerable to disease than their mixed breed counterparts. In fact, stricter breeding is associated with greater health problems. For instance, pugs have been selectively bred for generations for the short, flat-face aesthetic. The resulting snorting and loud breathing – which is considered a ‘cute’ trait – is the result of the dog’s difficulty breathing. The severity of the discomfort for the dog is thought to be so extreme that “Australian veterinarians and the RSPCA have called for all short-nosed dogs [...] to receive correct surgery because ‘reckless breeding’ has left them struggling to breathe,” – an issue that has also lead some airlines to refuse transporting short-snout dogs due to liability concerns. Pugs reportedly additionally suffer from “exercise intolerance, eye problems, dental disease, skin infections and spinal deformities”5 as a result of inbreeding for the preservation of the coveted ‘purebred’ classification. Given that many purebred health issues could be easily solved by breeding individuals that are more genetically diverse (and thus not adhering so closely to a breed’s ‘pinnacle traits’), maintaining the ‘strength’ of purebred lines for aesthetic purposes is ethically problematic.
The concept of a dog ‘breed’ was largely adopted in the Victorian period, when the pseudoscience of Eugenics was also on the rise. Around this time, dogs shifted from being a functional animal – meant for hunting or herding – to companion animals, owned by city citizens for camaraderie. This shift paired with the popularization of the Eugenics movement resulted in the widely-dispersed ideas that, through controlled breeding, “pure” types of dogs could be established based upon valued traits, much in the same way ‘pure’ ideas of humans were also being proposed. Eugenics thought when implemented within the human race has resulted in racially-motivated crimes against humanity11; however, the theory persists as a guiding principle in dog breeding today.
Dog breeds were established, through strict and consistent determined breeding. As ‘preferred’ traits become more common – such as a beagle’s signature floppy ears, black back, and pointy tails – so did the unintentional and unexpected health defects. Thanks to modern genetics, the reason for this correlation is clear.
Genes in every species can be coded for and expressed in a handful of ways, depending upon the variation of the gene an individual inherits. These alternative genetic forms are known as alleles. Each organism inherits two alleles for every gene; one from each parent. These inherited alleles – which may be different and perhaps conflict in their coded expression of a trait – are not always expressed equally. Typically, one allele will ‘override’ the other, determining the organism’s expression of the gene. This is referred to as the ‘dominant’ allele. For instance, if an individual receives one dominant allele for blue eyes and one recessive allele for green eyes, they would express the gene for blue eyes. As dog breeds were selected for chosen traits, these ‘dominant’ traits were largely what breeders controlled for.
Consider what may happen if a dominant, versus a recessive, allele is harmful. If it is dominant, the organism would express that damaging trait, and perhaps die because of it before reproducing and passing along the damaging allele to the next generation. If the deleterious allele is recessive, its expression would be masked by the dominant allele, and the organism could reproduce unhindered, passing along the recessive allele to the next generation. Thus, it is easier for natural selection to ‘weed out’ problematic dominant alleles than negative.
As people began to breed dogs in a controlled manner, they selected time and time again for favored alleles, such as fur texture, color, and waviness. However, they were also unintentionally selecting for hidden, recessive alleles chromosomally coupled with the desired genes. In this way, as preferred dominant alleles piled up to comprise desired ‘breeds,’ so did the damaging recessive alleles.
Inbreeding soon became a problem. When constantly selecting for individuals who all contain the same genes (such as red fur), one inevitably ends up breeding individuals with similar genes. For example, if you wanted puppies with red fur, you’d want both parents to have red fur. Multiply these same thoughts by a host of genes, one naturally ends up creating breeding trees with individuals who are very genetically similar. This results in inbreeding, where family lines are frequently backcrossed in sibling-sibling, cousin-cousin, offspring-parent matings. This drastically increases the likelihood of an individual inheriting two recessive alleles coding for the same gene, and thus potentially expressing a harmful or lethal trait.
Take, for instance, pit bulls. The hips of a female pitbull are no longer capable of supporting the male during copulation – the genes coding her bones have been so altered that artificial insemination is the only route possible for sustaining the breed. Still, the stocky frame of the dog is considered central to the breed, and therefore breedings continues2, entirely dependent upon humans for its continuation despite the other linked slew of health defects. Certain breeds, such as domermins, are actually predicted to go extinct due to its current level of inbreeding. The breed simply isn’t genetically diverse enough to sustain itself into the future.
The damage done by creating inbred, ‘purebred’ dogs is fixable, however. By breeding dogs with less genetically similar mates (less rigorously keeping to the breed standard), the resulting puppies can have their chance of disease, early death, and spine and skin disorders fall drastically. This is referred to as ‘outbreeding,’ a term used to describe expansion of the gene pool in order to reduce a given breed’s inbreeding health defects.8 In almost every case of purebred dog health defects, ‘preservation breeding’ – widening the dog breed’s genetic pool by breeding it with less-similar mates – will improve health, and in the extreme cases, save whole breeds from extinction.8
However, dog breeders worldwide staunchly oppose the idea of outbreeding. Simply put, purebred dogs are lucrative. People will pay good money to get a dog that fits the ideal image of a particular breed. Few want a dog that may be healthier, but does not as closely represent their chosen breed, and certainly not at the same high price.8 While there are some movements to make dog breeds healthier – such as the reengineering of French bulldogs to have snouts that allow them to breathe freely – they are generally notable but far and few between.
It is not ethical to maintain purebred dog breeds the way they have been for the last 150 years. They are less healthy, more predisposed to skin diseases, skeletal development disorders, eye injuries, and a host of other illnesses. Veterinarians estimate that certain breeds live in extreme discomfort, requiring surgical intervention.5 The science is clear in defining the origins of their plight, and the theories are proven to be functional and effective within a generation; regardless, there has been little change to the breeding practices of purebred lines. Currently, we as a society consider dogs’ health to be worth less than our personal preferences of their appearance. We should value dogs higher than that; they are not inanimate commodities, but organisms that feel pain as sharply as we do.12 Should we continue to discard the ethical dilemmas clearly spelled out for us, the punishment may be the loss of these purebred lines as a whole; we may drive ‘man’s best friend’ to extinction by favoring our preferences so high above their health.10, ,
References:
“The Westminster Kennel Club.” Homepage, https://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/.
Maldarelli, Claire. “Although Purebred Dogs Can Be Best in Show, Are They Worst in Health?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 21 Feb. 2014, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/although-purebred-dogs-can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/.
“RSPCA KNOWLEDGEBASE.” RSPCA Knowledgebase, 9 Nov. 2018, https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-animal-welfare-problems-are-associated-with-dog-breeding/.
Thomas, James, and Rebecca Armitage. “Pugs and Bulldogs 'Living Miserable Lives Because of Reckless Breeding'.” ABC News, ABC News, 13 Mar. 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-13/pugs-bulldogs-living-short-miserable-lives-veterinarians-say/8348686.
Magazine, Smithsonian. “The Evolution of Petface.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 31 Jan. 2018, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evolution-petface-180967987/.
Sara Chodosh | Published Mar 23, et al. “Scientists Have Identified a Gene That's Killing Purebred Dogs. Does That Even Matter?” Popular Science, 26 Apr. 2021, https://www.popsci.com/purebred-dog-inbreeding-genetic-mutation/.
“Are Preservation Breeders Preserving the Doberman? (No.).” The Institute of Canine Biology, https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/are-preservation-breeders-preserving-the-doberman-no.
Garnelis, Lukas. “‘Breed for Health. Not Show’: Breeder Is Reengineering French Bulldogs' Faces to Make Them Healthier.” Bored Panda, Bored Panda, 29 Mar. 2022, https://www.boredpanda.com/french-bulldog-breeder-reingeener-dog-face/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic.
“Are We Watching the Extinction of a Breed? (or, Why Are We Focused on Consequence Instead of Cause?).” The Institute of Canine Biology, https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/are-we-watching-the-extinction-of-a-breed-or-why-are-we-focused-on-consequence-instead-of-cause.
Jansson, Mija, and Linda Laikre. “Pedigree Data Indicate Rapid Inbreeding and Loss of Genetic Diversity within Populations of Native, Traditional Dog Breeds of Conservation Concern.” PloS One, Public Library of Science, 12 Sept. 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135370/.
Kevles, D J. “Eugenics and Human Rights.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), British Medical Journal, 14 Aug. 1999, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/.
Millburn, Naomi. “Do Dogs Feel as Much Pain as Humans?” Dog Care - Daily Puppy, 20 Nov. 2021, https://dogcare.dailypuppy.com/dogs-feel-much-pain-humans-5944.html.