Natural Selection and Artificial Selection in Dogs

In order for dogs to appear as they do today, as diverse as the jobs necessitated for them, humans had to breed together wolves. Natural selection, also known as “survival of the fittest,” began the process by having the most adaptable and social wolves work together with humans. Artificial selection, a concept created by humans, did the rest. Artificial selection is where one or two traits are selected and passed down. In the case of the Border collie, intelligence was desired. As a result these animals are incredibly smart and can follow over a hundred different cues. Now in the span of 150 years, over 400 breeds are available to choose from. Presently there are some breeds that are more popular than others—the golden retriever for example—and as a result, artificial selection is causing a severe health decline in these popular breeds. Breed standards need to be changed, and the best way to do it is to start with gaining public support and making health testing mandatory for all breeders.

There is more to artificial selection than meets the eye. By focusing on a singular, or a couple of traits, others gradually disappear. This can be seen in not just dogs, but other animals bred for specific tasks. For example, pigs raised for the slaughter have been bred to be so enormous that sows have to be taken away from their piglets so they don’t crush them. Why? Sows aren’t aware that rolling on top of the piglets will kill them—intelligence was reduced in exchange for large body mass (Bar-Yam).

For dogs, exaggerated features cause severe health defects. The pug is a perfect example. Its short snout does not serve any real purpose other than as a fashion statement for the people who own them. Owners look at their pugs and think its short, stubby legs, curly tail, and short snout is cute. What they do not see is that their short nose makes breathing and temperature regulation very difficult. A pug’s curly tail also puts a lot of stress on the spine, causing back problems in the future. Since these health defects are silent killers—shortening the pug’s individual and breed lifespan—there is not a cause for alarm. Breeders still sell their pets for top dollar because their pups look like the dog that won the AKC (American Kennel Club) Dog Show. Pugs that do not match breed standard do not sell for as much, which makes change difficult. This can be seen in all purebreds.

The point of dog shows is to ensure that the breed stays true to its original form. Every dog has changed significantly over the years, and judges and participants are aware of this. In an effort to combat the health defects prevalent in individual breeds, breeders ensure only quality dogs are shown (Conformation Frequently Asked Questions). What does quality mean? In this day and age, it means that the lineage of each pup is healthy, and that any health defects have been bred out. For labs, breeders are working to eradicate hip dysplasia. However this type of change only impacts the dogs shown in dog shows, and the people who buy the puppies. Dog show pups are incredibly expensive, and consumers will buy their labs someplace cheaper. Unless the seller is a dedicated breeder, and breeds to improve the bloodline, many sellers do not ensure their lab pups do not have hip dysplasia in their genes. The problem is only perpetuated this way, and nothing changes.

Those who participate in dog shows are, for the most part, putting forth an effort in changing the future of purebred dogs. Where the real change lies, however, is with the general public. The public is a consumer, and consumers buy their products—in this case their dogs—under the assumption that any problems, present or future, are in the hands of the seller. This is what Blair would call a Fallacy as a False Belief (Blair). There is an assumption that a dog that comes from a “reputable breeder” or with a “good pedigree” is completely healthy, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. Consumers are under the false assumption that today’s dogs are fine. As a result, there is complacence about the health of the dog and no call to change breed standards. Consumers, owners, simply are not educated properly.

Shafer-Landau says, “Any morality worth the name will place some importance on justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness. Just how much importance and how to balance things on cases of conflict—that is where the real philosophy gets done” (Shafer-Landau). In other words, there is a lot of back and forth about who is responsible for the decline of purebred dogs. At the end of the day, however, both pet owners and dog show breeders want the same thing. By attacking the problem through education, there is not a need to get defensive. Owners do not want to be told that their pets are unhealthy, or that they are enhancing a problem. By that same token, neither do breeders. This type of logic puts the blame on the owner or breeder, and they get defensive and try to deflect it elsewhere. Instead, educating them on the process of creating a purebred and introducing the dog’s history does not put the blame on anyone, and opens up the conversation.

Conversation is the best way to begin more widespread change. The documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, truly began the discussion between dog shows and owners, however it used shock tactics to promote change. As a result, people got defensive over their breed and their pets to the point that now the problem is being dismissed. Marginal change was gained in the dog show world, but it was quickly overshadowed by the contempt the documentary gained from the public (Cuddy). The knowledge gained through this incident is that education on this issue needs to be unbiased.

There isn’t a high demand for today’s dogs to have a job. Dogs that are bred specifically for a job often cannot perform the work. A show German shepherd, for example, has too many health defects to be allowed to work in a military or police setting. A German shepherd taken from the pound, or with no bloodlines tied to those in show, are often seen on the battlefields or accompanying officers. This goes to show that working dogs are bred for function, and often look nothing like the standards set forth in show manuals. Since most dogs today are pets, emphasis should not be put on the cosmetics of a dog, but rather on its quality of living. By placing value on a dog’s personality rather than its looks, exaggerated features will slowly recede.

Education is a great way to attack the problem, but the health issue of purebred dogs requires a two-pronged attack. Making consumers aware of their personal impacts on the breed takes a lot of time, with a lot of back and forth as conversations happen. In the meantime, making health tests mandatory for breeders will attack the problem before it continues to happen.

Mandatory health testing gets rid of genetic problems. In the case of setters, CLAD (Canine Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency), an inherited, fatal immunodeficiency disease was found and eradicated as a result of health testing (“Changing Breed Standards and Dog Health”). These health tests would not only deal with diseases, but also the physical makeup of the dog. In-breeding, a major cause of health defects, would be put out of practice. Brachycephalic dogs would be bred to have longer noses, making these breeds healthier. Artificial selection would be used to reverse the problem with the help of natural selection.

The mandatory health testing will only be for dog show participants and large breeders—commercial or private. The cost will also fall on these individuals. Large breeding institutions are the frontrunners of the breed. These institutions set the standards and maintain them—consumers and casual breeders merely follow the example laid out before them. Bringing a new generation of puppies into the world isn’t a short-term problem rather it creates long-term results. As such, the breeders should accept the responsibility of making sure the new generations are as healthy as possible. While this seems unfair, at the moment consumers are paying for the unhealthy breeds in vet bills. With mandatory health testing, pups from careless breeders are filtered out of the genetic pool. The change would be slow, but well worth the cost.

It would be difficult to regulate mandatory health tests for all breeders, which is another reason why only large institutions are required for these tests and not casual breeders. Large institutions are under a lot of scrutiny, making it somewhat more difficult to try and exempt from these tests. There are, however, ways to cheat the system, which is why it is important to instill the need, the desire, to better the breed.

Overall the solution to this issue starts at the top with dog show participants and judges, and trickles its way down to the bottom to consumers and hobby breeders. Educating the need for change to breeders is the first step. While dog show participants and judges are aware of the problems with purebred dogs, there isn’t a lot of concern, or desire to do anything about it. In fact, there are many instances were breeders will deny the existence of these problems. This attitude makes its way down to the general public who sells and buys puppies because of standards that are deemed appropriate. These consumers don’t have a lot of knowledge on the issue, and take any attack on the breeds as attacks on their character. Raising awareness and promoting the desire for change will attack this mindset and shift it towards dogs who are bred for quality of living, not quality of looks.

Mandatory health testing, in the meanwhile, will bring further awareness to the amount of problems found in purebred dogs and will give breeders a chance to stop these issues from continuing firsthand. By doing this, breeders are aware of their actions and cannot put the blame on anyone else. Taking away the blame saves time and opens up a conversation between breeders. Backlash would be directed towards the cost of these health tests, but as stated before, the current regime of breeding is not free. Owners are footing the bill for breeder mistakes, and by turning the bill to the breeder, less suffering will likely occur on both the part of the dog and the owner.