What are we doing to our beautiful dogs??

Having watched the BBC’s documentary about the pedigree dogs I am disgusted to be human. Exploiting certain breed characteristics “to fit in” with an interpretation of a breed “standard” is cruel, egotistical and irresponsible. Since when did we start to believe our knowledge is supreme compared to nature itself?! The number of middle-class, 50-somethings that breed these dogs for so-called beauty appear to be the ones spear-heading stud dogs and bitches with major genetic flaws. Why do they continue to breed unhealthy dogs? Money? Prestige? Ego? It sure isn’t “love of the breed” that some claim or a desire to see the best, healthy specimen of the breed. We wouldn’t do it to future generations of the human race – it’s immoral, arrogant and dangerous for any species in question.

Do they think that selective breeding to “set the better characteristics” won’t cause problems 10-fold in 2 or 3 generations? They must know that narrowing the gene pool only leads to immunity weakness and genetic instability?! After all they are renowned breeders whose dogs are “the finest specimens” of the breed! Eugenics is long gone isn’t it? Genocide has never been an acceptable practice for humans and neither has euthanasia, so why is it different for dogs? Well, dogs do not have autonomy so the responsibility falls to us. Just because they can’t say no to being bred from doesn’t mean that they should be producing litter after litter of pups regardless of the consequences. We are responsible for their care and needs in this day and age because we have bred most of their survival instincts out of them, but obviously it has not always been so. Dogs were and still are very resourceful scavengers and they lived perfectly well in the wild, long before we came along and “domesticated” them. Not surprisingly, looks weren’t high on their agenda for living. Provided they could remain blended with their landscape and able to adapt to different conditions quickly, they survived, and that was all that mattered. It’s only humans – the vain, narcissistic species that we are – that got so hung up on what was ‘prettier’ and supposedly we knew more about what was more beneficial to the dog than nature did. Conceit and arrogance in abundance helped us to convince ourselves and others that what we were doing was in the best interests for the breed and we are still doing it! A pug doesn’t need a shorter nose and a Basset Hound does not need shorter legs, no matter what any breeder says! The Kennel Club breed standards are fundamentally flawed: they no longer celebrate what the dog’s breeding and purpose was but they celebrate a written standard that is far out of date, open to wide (and often incorrect) interpretation and it’s superficial at best.

In a race that seems to obsess over the “unique” and “individual”, we have successfully narrowed the gene pool in most dog breeds so that one day we will be obsessing over the last remaining dog of the breed and lamenting at the loss that we so tragically brought about ourselves. All because we thought it should have a curlier tail, or a shorter nose, or a longer back, or more of a thicker, heavier coat or broad-set haunches or shorter legs, or smaller eyes, or longer legs. Need I go on? We have single-handedly bred our beautiful dogs out of existence. Humans saw a way of creating something very unique, easily, and took it upon themselves to bastardise the breeds that were already more beautiful and unique than we could ever create through short-sighted greed and self-propelled prestige. The desire for an easy way to make a name for yourself became too tempting for many and the dogs suffer as well as future generations as they will never see the healthy, fit and shining examples of many breeds now as they are past the point of being able to widen the gene-pool to what it was.
When did it become morally right to choose to breed from genetically flawed specimens of a race/breed? When did it become acceptable that we exploit the characteristics of an animal purely for aesthetic purposes, because it makes us smile because it’s cute or laugh because it walks funny? The principle is this: A Ridgeback with a ridge (with Dermoid Sinus - a form of spina bifida) is carrying a genetic disability. According to the theory of evolution and natural selection, this means that the animal will have a weakness and thus will not survive to procreate or at least will not reproduce their genetic flaw so abundantly as a stronger animal as they are weaker and will have a shorter life span. More generations with stronger genes will grow in numbers and slowly but surely nature will find a way of weeding out the ones with the genetic problems. The same applies to humans having the illness – natural selection (in the presence and absence of modern day drugs) would determine that the strongest specimens of the race survive the longest and the weakest, well… they do not. If you had a child with autism that didn’t have the capacity for autonomy, would you still match them with another autism sufferer and let them reproduce so that you could keep the blood line going and make some money? Of course not!! It’s illegal, immoral, and potentially produces a very unstable pool of DNA from which future generations will come. You don't have to be a dog lover to know that what is being done is wrong.

Lets see the breeding process compares to human life… Firstly, it is often us that chooses to bring puppies into the world by intentionally mating our dog or bitch, just as a man and woman would have sex to procreate and produce a child. These offspring are dependant on us for food, security and affection. With dogs this isn’t just the puppies but the dog/bitch as well so the level of dependency is also parallel with a child’s existence. As a child grows up, it is taught good habits and “trained” to some extent so that they do as they are told – social conditioning I suppose you could call it. A misbehaving or unruly dog in today’s society is, at best a nuisance and at worst, a danger to the public. Children develop their own personalities. So does each dog! (No dog owner that really knows their dog(s) would say that they all have identical temperaments!) They have traits that are common to the breed just as humans have influences from certain backgrounds – different races, different cultures etc. Some of this is genetic (nature) and some partly learned (nurture). With so few differences, why and how can we just justify ending perfectly healthy canine lives on the basis that they are physically not akin to what was written by the Kennel Club up to 100 years ago?

Why do we feel the need to be, or try to prove we are, omnipotent?! We may like playing God in these matters but a lot of the breeders in the documentary as well as the Kennel Club geneticist, Jeff Sampson and the Chairman, Ronnie Irving, don't champion these breeds one bit. THEY are culling them but in a slower and far more painful and distressing way for the poor dog in question with huge expense to the poor owners. The owners thought their beloved pet and family member was a healthy pup because it was KC registered and comes from a good, healthy lineage, otherwise the KC wouldn’t register them surely?? The KC clearly DON'T care about the health and well being of the dogs and they don’t appear to even fully understand what is written within their own code of ethics, as was shown on the BBC. I genuinely believe that if breeders are knowingly found to be breeding from dogs with predisposed conditions they should be banned from owning dogs and breeding them, totally.

Euthanasia would not be so necessary either, if we hadn’t bred dogs to the extremes that we have. Obviously there will be weak traits within any breed, the same goes for all species: genetics are not set in stone. Genes are changing constantly which is why the human race is so varied and rich in all aspects of life. What happened to allowing natural selection; surely evolution should have the say here, not us? Evidently not.

Are breeders now kicking themselves that they haven’t done something sooner and trying to sweep it under the carpet for future generations to deal with and miss out on? They need to accept responsibility for the future generations of the breeds, not just talk the talk and make some money and a name for themselves along the way.

After Jeff Sampson’s pathetic claim that “things could be worse” in an attempt to put a positive spin on the situation, they need to realise that inaction is not the answer! The KC need to grow some testicles and assert their authority. If breed clubs refuse to support the need for compulsory health tests, they should not longer be affiliated with the KC. Healthy puppies should never be put to sleep either just because they don't fit in with a supposed standard, It's cruel and thoroughly out of order.

The Kennel Club needs to relax the rules surrounding the pedigree breed standards so that healthy variation is celebrated rather than criticised, make health testing obligatory for existing stud dogs/bitches and if found to be carrying genetic disease all owners of their offspring should be notified that breeding is not allowed. If a breed standard results in dogs that are sick and in pain why can't the standard be changed immediately?

Breed standards ought to support the healthy examples of the breed and should be exemplary specimens of what they were bred for. Toy dogs and utility groups that have more obscure roles can still be “pretty” but more importantly, they should be healthy, happy dogs with a good temperament and no physical disfigurements or exaggerated characteristics.

Carriers of congenital diseases should be neutered or spayed and they should also not be shown as examples of the breed. From this point forward all breeds should be tested for the biggest health risks known to the breed within the next year from the notification if their registration with the KC is to continue.

No puppies should be bred from carriers and new puppies should be tested before their pedigree is awarded by the Kennel Club.

The Kennel Club should be keeping better tabs on the medical advancements that are occurring (in partnership with the RCVS), so that as and when new tests are available for known problems within breeds, they should be made compulsory for existing dogs to be tested before further litters are bred and future generations should be tested prior to registration by the Kennel Club.

The primary concern should be for the welfare and health of the breed for all future generations. The Kennel Club should be protecting the breeds, not condoning their demise through irresponsible breeding and this should be done irrespective of whether they will take a loss for the costs of this. It’s partly the Kennel Club’s fault for not remaining vigilant to the issue in the first place. WE NEED RADICAL OVERHAUL OF THE WAY DOGS ARE BRED AND REGISTERED. Now that there is legislation to stop cruelty and neglect to animals, why does breeding from genetically disfigured animals not constitute a breach of it?

If we end up with some of our favourite breeds endangered or worse, extinct, all we’ll have left is pictures and I don’t think taking a picture for a walk is much fun whatsoever.
If anyone has any idea as to what we can do about this, please email me and let me know. I really want to help bring about changes to the welfare management of these beautiful creatures and see them return to their former glory.