Jo Bian

Writing 39C
Dr. Lynda Hass
5/18/15
Issue With Extreme Dog Breeding
"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 animal humans most similar with, because almost every household owns at
least one of them or wants to have one. Dogs are evolved from wolves. To accommodate to the
human society, they underwent drastic selection pressure, 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 never been found. All scientists
know for certain are 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 long-lasting bond called mutualism was formed between humans and dogs.
In the first part of this Advocacy project, dog domestication expert James Serpell, Darcy F.
Morey, L. N. Trut, Leslie Irvine and Adam Miklosis publication will be compared and
discussed. These scientists have traced dogs journey of domestication, analyzing their change in
physical appearance, behavior, and relationship with humans. Their researches show how big of

difference humankind have made in dogs, and dogs have always been the vulnerable group that
are compelled to accept their fate.
Review of the Scientific Literature
Humans have always domesticated dogs in a way to accommodate to their own
preference/convienence. Dr. Darcy F. Morey is a zooarchaeologist from the University of
Tenniessee 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 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 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 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 focus. Since dogs are familiar with humans behavior, and
they are welling 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 Victoria Era. Dog breeders and owners take proud of 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 emotional support and 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 for them to have 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.