“It is fascinating to speculate how dogs and humans might co-evolve further. We cannot say exactly what the domestic dogs of the future will look like because we do not know what future humans will need and therefore value. But pedigree dogs, as they are currently defined, are doomed.”

–Paul McGreevy, comment in The New Scientist (“We must breed happier, healthier dogs,” 8 October 2008)

Irish Wolfhound Sam, photo by Tirwhan, Wikipedia

Contributed by Alina Lilova

In my early teens, I used to worship the world of the dog fancy, which I was familiar with through hobby magazines and occasional direct contact. I could recognise dozens upon dozens of breeds, I would read their entire standards, I thought dog shows were fascinating, and I dreamt of studying “cynology,” or canine science.

How disenchanted I am today. Over the years, I slowly came to realise that canine science rests on shaky biological grounds because it is not dog-centric as its name implies. The individual dog doesn’t matter as much as the frozen ideal of the breed. Selective breeding isn’t used to create happy and well-adjusted family pets, but to improve “breed quality,” i.e. match ever more closely what the dog looked like in a mythical past or will look like in a utopian future, as laid out in the sacred books of the kennel club.  Other concerns exist, but they are secondary.

Obsessively pursuing the Breed Standard like a pack of hounds, breeders risk losing sight of the animal welfare problems that come with their quest. The first problem is inbreeding, or the crossing of related individuals. While many laypeople believe that pedigrees serve to make sure no close relatives are mated, in fact the opposite is often true. The second problem is exaggerated physical traits: dog shows, like those fashion shows with super-skinny models, don’t always have the participant’s welfare in mind. In this article, I’m going to discuss the two issues as well as give my amateur opinion on the historical roots of the problem. (more…)